Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

EU Rebate

Daniel Kawczynski: If he will make a statement on the Government's position in the budget negotiations on the United Kingdom's rebate from the European Union.

Jack Straw: We are committed to working for a deal at the December European Council. Our position on the abatement remains as set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in this House on 20 June.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that securing the rebate was a tremendous achievement by Mrs. Thatcher and that it would be incorrect to give it up, as certain Cabinet members have suggested in the press, while fraud accounts for between 7 and 10 per cent. of the EU budget? Does he agree that if we gave up the rebate, every penny piece, which should go to our schools and hospitals, would go on fraud in the European Union?

Jack Straw: I was in the House when the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, explained what she had done, and we were very unimpressed. She had to go for a rebate because of the consequences of her disastrous economic policies, which plunged Britain into recession, put 3 million people on the dole and made the United Kingdom one of the poorest countries in the whole of the European Union. [Interruption.] I am surprised that Conservative Members are laughing about 3 million people being unemployed. That was the reality 20 years ago, and many of our constituents remember it, which is why they have refused to return a Conservative Government since 1997. Thanks to this Government, far from being one of the poorest nations in Europe, we are now one of the most prosperous, so the context for negotiation has changed.

Doug Henderson: I know that my right hon. Friend needs little encouragement to argue the British case both in this House and when he meets European colleagues. Will he raise the profile of the fairness of the budget distribution within the European Union and emphasise that the issue concerns not only an abatement or budget rebate, but finding a fair system that allows us to pay our fair share, which is no more and no less than our major partners?

Jack Straw: We intend to have detailed discussions for the first time since the June Council at the General Affairs Council, which will meet next Monday 7 November. My hon. Friend is right that fairness is the issue. The current abatement is an anomaly, but it is an anomaly on an anomaly, and the most profound anomaly is the structure and funding of the common agricultural policy. That is the reason why we are seeking a review mechanism within the next financial perspective to ensure major and significant reforms of the CAP and a better distribution of the funding of the overall EU budget.

Eric Forth: Will   the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the rebate is non-negotiable in those terms? Alternatively, will he reassure the House and the people of this country that if there is no reform of the CAP, there is no question of renegotiating the British rebate? Will he please answer those questions unequivocally?

Jack Straw: What I can tell the House unequivocally is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has said, the rebate is currently fully justified. We are seeking a fairer system of funding, and if the reason for the rebate—the unfairness over time of the CAP—were to fall away, the case for the abatement would fall away. However, I will not anticipate the consequence of the discussions that will take place over the next two months.

John McFall: May I support the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) by asking the Foreign Secretary to dismiss any suggestions that the rebate should be discussed before the bloated CAP programme is rectified? There should be a common EU-US policy on the Doha round in Hong Kong to allow developing countries at least half a chance of getting their goods into the rich man's network. It is only after those things have been achieved that we can even begin to discuss the rebate.

Jack Straw: We are bound to discuss the rebate in the context of the future financing arrangements for 2007–13. That is unavoidable, because the current arrangements are on the table, where they have been since last June. I fully share my right hon. Friend's concerns about the structure and fairness of the budget, which is why we refused to reach a deal at the June Council and have clearly set out what we regard as an acceptable context for a deal in December.

Graham Brady: We are four months into a presidency that lasts six months—two thirds of the way through—yet last week I was told in a written answer that the Government have yet to present any presidency proposals for the 2007–13 budget. When the first ministerial discussion is held on 7 November, will the Foreign Secretary at least make it clear that the UK will make no concessions, including on the rebate, merely on the promise of a review of farm spending in 2008–09?

Jack Straw: We set out the circumstances in which we are willing to reach an agreement. The House has the reassurance of not only what I promise here but our refusal to do a deal in June because the offer from the Luxembourg presidency was not acceptable. We need a budget that is fair to all, takes account of the changed circumstances—happily, the UK is a much more prosperous nation now than it was 20 years ago—looks forward and shifts more funding towards the future of Europe, especially research and development, rather than its past, namely, agricultural spending. No responsible Government would anticipate the precise nature of any deal, or outline it until it was done.

Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend knows that the EU budget was set in accordance with the strategic objectives that were identified, one of which was prosperity. In identifying that, the need for investment in training and education, small and medium-sized businesses and research and development was also recognised. If the spat on the rebate ends with the budget not being signed over in December, what will be the effect on that objective? Is it likely to have a detrimental impact on growth in the EU?

Jack Straw: If there is no deal on the budget this or even next December, under the treaties, existing budgets are simply rolled over so that the budget's current structure is frozen, including the disproportionate amount that is spent on the common agricultural policy. We want a more significant proportion of spending to be devoted to research and development. I am pleased to   say that we have the support of the president of the EU Commission, President Barroso, but we have a long way to go before we convince all our EU partners, especially France and other countries that are heavily dependent on agricultural subsidies, that that is the way forward. That is the purpose of the negotiations in the next seven weeks.

John Redwood: Will the Foreign Secretary hold urgent talks with our French partners about the matter? Does he agree that, unless we can remove the French obstacle on the agricultural budget, the EU can make no sensible proposal through the trade commissioner to help the Doha talks, and that we will therefore do nothing to help the struggling third world, which needs to export into our markets?

Jack Straw: I have urgent talks all the time with our French colleagues—that is the easy part. It is more difficult to get them to agree with the position that we and other member states have taken. Agricultural subsidies and the Doha round were discussed at the special meeting of the General Affairs Council two weeks ago today. France sought a change in the negotiating mandate for the Commission and it was not   successful. The existing mandate was confirmed. We realise—and others in Europe would do better to realise—that the level of subsidy for farming is proportionately higher in Europe than in the United States.

Kosovo

Jim Devine: What recent discussions he has held with EU member states about the future governance and constitution of Kosovo.

Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the Eide report on the status of Kosovo.

Douglas Alexander: We welcome Ambassador Eide's report and, in particular, his recommendation that a final status process be launched in Kosovo. That should reinforce regional stability and strengthen democratic, multi-ethnic society in Kosovo. The international community will remain engaged throughout the process and in implementing any settlement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will chair a discussion on Kosovo with EU colleagues on 7 November.

Jim Devine: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. What contact has he had with the Kosovan authorities about the return of people displaced by the conflict?

Douglas Alexander: May I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend to the House and to his first Foreign Affairs questions?
	I had the opportunity on a recent visit to Kosovo not only to meet representatives of the Kosovan authorities but to visit the multi-ethnic village of Bablak, where I   was able to meet villagers who told me of their own   experience of trying to re-forge a multi-ethnic community in the circumstances that followed the difficulties of recent years.

Mike Gapes: The Eide report makes sobering reading. It states that considerable work needs to be done on standards, particularly in regard to corruption, policing and judicial systems. Will the Government assure us that they will proceed with caution towards the final status, ensuring that any solution takes full account of human rights and of the judicial and policing systems in Kosovo?

Douglas Alexander: I can give the House that assurance. I   am also aware of the important work that the Foreign Affairs Committee has done on the western Balkans; it published a report earlier this year. Given the importance of the issues involved, we none the less welcome the ambassador's report. My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that further progress on standards undoubtedly needs to be made. None the less, the conclusion of the ambassador's report was clear.

John Randall: Does the Minister agree that an important partner in our discussions on the final status will be the Republic of Macedonia, in the light of its own success in establishing a multi-ethnic state? Does he also agree that, before a final status for Kosovo can be achieved, the situation regarding the border area around Debelde should be resolved?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is correct to acknowledge that certain border issues need to be discussed as part of the final status process. He is also right to pay due compliments to the work that has been carried out in Macedonia. Macedonia should offer us a   sense of possibility and optimism when we consider the challenges facing Kosovo, given the circumstances that afflicted Macedonia only a few years ago and the extent to which it has successfully managed to forge a multi-ethnic community in recent years.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister   confirm that self-determination would be wholly inconsistent with the policy of Her Majesty's Government when we intervened in Kosovo in 1999? Will he also confirm that the Government have learned the lessons of intervention without a clear exit strategy?

Douglas Alexander: I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman was now arguing that we should have accepted ethnic cleansing being perpetrated on the borders of the neighbourhood that is the European Union. It is important to recognise that Kosovo—along with other partners in the process—has a responsibility towards the final status talks that are now taking place. It is not for me to pre-judge the outcome of the process at this time.

Denis MacShane: I welcome my right hon. Friend's approach, but surely, after six years, the time has come to say that we should let Kosovo be Kosovo. This bastard half-state is a child of the United Nations, without the authority of a state to pass laws or to accept the responsibility of developing good relations with its neighbours, and it cannot continue much longer. Belgrade cannot have a veto.   There is a need for consultation with Kosovo's neighbours in Macedonia, and for infrastructure development to allow economic growth to take place. Another five or six years of this non-status for Kosovo will make matters far worse. The time has come to say that Kosovo should become independent and accept the responsibilities of independent statehood.

Douglas Alexander: I certainly recognise that the status quo needs to be taken forward. That is why, notwithstanding the challenges that were identified in Ambassador Eide's report, it is now right to take the final status process forward. Independence for Kosovo remains one of the options, and it is the one that 90 per cent. of Kosovan Albanians are keen to secure. However, it is not for the British Government to pre-judge the outcome of the final status talks.

Angus Robertson: Does the Minister agree that much good work has been done in Kosovo in recent years by the global conflict prevention pool, supported by the Foreign Office? That being the case, and with much work still to do in Kosovo, will he explain why the budget line for the Balkans has been slashed? While he is at it, will he also explain why the budget lines have been slashed for central and eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, India, Pakistan and Kashmir? The list goes on. Why is money being siphoned off from the global conflict prevention pool strategy to pay for the quagmire of Iraq?

Douglas Alexander: This issue has already been the subject of some debate in the House. Indeed, I participated in such a debate with the hon. Gentleman only last week. If he does not believe that budgets should be reviewed in   the light of changing circumstances, that is very revealing so far as the credibility of the Scottish nationalists is concerned.

Andijan Massacre

Greg Hands: If he will make a statement on the steps that the   United Kingdom has taken to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Andijan massacre in Uzbekistan on 13 May.

Douglas Alexander: We have been at the forefront of efforts to establish what happened in Andijan on 13 May. Our ambassador and his embassy team have visited the area, spoken to eyewitnesses and met NGOs. Our ambassador has spoken repeatedly to the Uzbek Government. We remain as convinced as ever of the need for a credible, external inquiry. That is why, under our presidency, the European Union has adopted a series of new measures against the Uzbek Government, including an arms embargo and a targeted visa ban.

Greg Hands: I appreciate what the Minister says about   the arms embargo, but is it not incongruous that   his Government should support Uzbekistan's continued membership of the NATO partnership for peace programme?

Douglas Alexander: The NATO partnership for peace process relies not just on the will of one country, the United Kingdom, but on a number of other members of   NATO. I respect the hon. Gentleman's point, but I   think that we have taken what opportunities are available to us to register our profound concern at the failure to establish an independent inquiry and to take the practical measures that have been outlined through the European Union.

David Drew: It would appear from the various e-mails that the Uzbek embassy kindly sends me that it has already made up its mind about the relative guilt of those who were shot. Is it not about time that the international community took the Uzbek regime much more seriously and tried to do something about it, rather than showing it far too much leniency as it has done in the past?

Douglas Alexander: I assure my hon. Friend that we take extremely seriously both the monitoring of the trial and, more generally, the need for an independent inquiry into the events in Andijan. We have led the international efforts to co-ordinate monitoring of the trial on behalf of the European Union, and we expect verdicts on the   15 defendants in only a few days. I assure my hon.   Friend that the matter will continue to be of concern to the British Government.

Alistair Carmichael: Has there not already been a series of independent inquiries, organised by groups such as Human Rights Watch and the Institute for War & Peace Reporting? Have they not established that what happened in Andijan was at least as bad as what happened in Tiananmen square? Should we not now seek sanctions against the Uzbek Government, similar to those that were imposed on China after Tiananmen square?

Douglas Alexander: We believe that the Uzbek authorities did use excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force, but we also believe that the case for an independent inquiry endures.
	As for the specific efforts made by the British Government, I have already mentioned the imposition of an arms embargo under the British leadership and   presidency, and the visa restrictions imposed on those deemed to have been responsible for the disproportionate use of force in Andijan. All technical meetings have been suspended under the European Union's partnership and co-operation agreement. We will of course support the reorientation of the Commission's funding programme for Uzbekistan to promote an increased focus on poverty reduction along with democracy, human rights and civil societies. We have taken action, but the Council of the European Union has not ruled out additional steps if they prove necessary.

Burma

David Taylor: What recent discussions he has had with his EU   counterparts on Burma.

Ian Pearson: Burma continues to be of great concern to the EU. The UK led the way in strengthening the common position last year, and Burma was addressed by the Council of Ministers in June and July this year.

David Taylor: Burma is a brutal regime that persecutes, imprisons and murders its opponents, tyrannises its people by trampling all over their human   rights, and peddles heroin and amphetamines worldwide. Are we working with EU colleagues such as France, Denmark and Greece to force Burma on to the agenda of the UN Security Council so that it can intervene, as it has intervened in equally appalling regimes such as those of Afghanistan and Cambodia? Is that not what an ethical foreign policy is all about?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the massive human rights abuses in Burma. We regularly discuss Burma with our EU partners, and we are also having discussions within the United Nations. We are supporting the United States initiative to seek Security Council consideration of Burma, and we would certainly support any action in the UN—including the Security Council—that would help to promote reform and positive progress in Burma.

John Bercow: Is the Minister as   horrified as I am that the French company Total, through its $400 million investment in Burma, is propping up one of the most brutal and sadistic regimes in the world? Does he agree that the time has now come for robust sanctions to be applied against the oil, gas, gems and timber sectors to cut the supply of funds to the military? Is there, moreover, the slightest prospect now of achieving the critical mass necessary for change, or are we to be subject once again to a display of hand-wringing impotence by the European Union, as respect for human rights and democratic values comes a poor second to the reckless pursuit of filthy lucre?

Ian Pearson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, given that we have discussed Burma on a number of occasions, it is the UK's long-standing policy not to encourage trade or investment in Burma. We favour multilateral targeted measures against the Burma regime because we believe that they have greater practical impact and send a stronger political signal. Certainly, we regularly raise our concerns about Burma with our Association of South East Asian Nations partners, who perhaps have greater influence than do we in the west. We should not overestimate the effectiveness of western sanctions on the Burmese regime; they have not had any significant impact that we can see to date. We continue to keep our policy under review, but we need to ensure that it consists not just of sanctions.

Turkey

Lynne Featherstone: If he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Turkey.

Douglas Alexander: The European Council's decision to open accession negotiations was prompted by decisive progress in Turkey's reform programme, notably on human rights. Further progress is required, but we believe that Turkey's EU accession process will continue to be an effective catalyst for improvement in its human rights situation, and that all concerns will be addressed during that process.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the Minister for his response and we very much welcome the progress made by the Turkish Government in bringing their laws into line with international law. Given, however, that the   UK currently holds the EU presidency, do the Government plan to discuss minority rights in Turkey with the Turkish Government?

Douglas Alexander: It is important to recognise that the negotiating framework itself, which was agreed ahead of the decision on 3 October, makes clear the obligations under which Turkey is operating. It states:
	"The Union expects Turkey to sustain the process of reform and to work towards further improvement in the respect of . . . human rights and fundamental freedoms".
	Since 3 October, Olli Rehn, the commissioner for enlargement, has travelled to Ankara and the basis of the discussions that took place was the negotiating framework, of which human rights are an essential part.

Andrew MacKinlay: When Turkey received its candidacy status, did the Minister notice that journalists and authors were arrested for drawing attention to the Armenian massacres? What is Her Majesty's Government's reaction to that, given that the Turkish Government refuse to acknowledge that the massacres took place, and that they arrest people for arguing that they took place?

Douglas Alexander: Clearly, the European Union and the British Government, which holds the EU presidency, are concerned that charges have been brought against Mr. Pamuk, the individual whom I believe my hon. Friend is referring to. But is it also important that this House take note of, and is respectful of, the views of that author, who said that he did not want the charges brought against him to stand in the way of Turkey's progress toward the European Union. While not in any way diminishing the difficulties that he continues to face, all of us who have a genuine concern for human rights in Turkey see continuing progress toward a European future for Turkey as the best way to secure human rights not just for him, but for other members of the Turkish population.

Richard Ottaway: But is the Minister aware that the charge against Mr. Pamuk is insulting the country's national character? Bringing such charges against renowned authors undermines the whole judicial system, and without a judicial system in which people can confident it will impossible to make any progress on human rights.

Douglas Alexander: Of course, Turkey will have to make changes to its legal system given that, on its own estimation, it will not enter the EU for 10 to 15 years. However, at this critical stage after 3 October, it is important that we continue to make clear the EU's view on the urgency of the changes that are required. The case of Orhan Pamuk was raised with the Turkish Justice Minister in the margins of a justice and home affairs meeting held on 7 to 9 September. I assure the House that we will follow up that dialogue in the months to come.

Phyllis Starkey: The Minister said that Turkey needs to make more progress on human rights, but noted that it has made considerable progress already. Will he take every opportunity, in this House and in the EU, to use that as a positive example of how the EU's commitment to human rights and democratic principles is the best way to improve human rights and democracy in countries which, like Turkey, wish to become EU members?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It ill   behoves some Opposition Members to argue that the EU's only legitimate role is to be a large free trade area, and at the same time to assert their great concern for the   role of human rights in the future of the EU and its   members. Turkey and the western Balkans offer the   clearest examples of how an enduring concern for   human rights can transform societies. That transformation could not be achieved without the action of the EU, and the Euro-sceptics have no answer to that.

Rafiq Hariri

Danny Alexander: What action the Government are taking following the report of the UN inquiry into the death of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

Jack Straw: The UK was co-sponsor of   UN Security Council resolution 1636, which was passed unanimously at a ministerial meeting of the Security Council yesterday. The resolution sets out the   Security Council's profound concerns about Syria's behaviour towards the UN investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq   Hariri. It places clear obligations on Syria in respect of co-operation with the UN investigation and of non-interference by Syria in Lebanese domestic affairs. The resolution also makes it clear that the   Security Council will consider further action if co-operation by Syria is not forthcoming.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for that reply. The UN resolution is welcome confirmation of the will of the   international community to identify, and take action against, those who are responsible for that appalling act. However, if the final report proves Syrian involvement beyond doubt, will the Foreign Secretary set out the measures that the Government would be prepared to take to act against those who are responsible?

Jack Straw: First, I hope very much that the Syrian Government change their ways and co-operate with Detlev Mehlis, the UN prosecutor. As was made clear   in   the Security Council, the history has been one of co-operation on form, at best, and not on substance. Prosecutor Mehlis' interim report is a chilling catalogue of evasion and half-truths by the Syrian Government. I   hope that they get the message: if they do not, the Security Council will take account of operational paragraph 13, which states that a further report would be compiled and that, if necessary, a further meeting would be held to consider further action. It is likely that that further action would be as set out in article 41 of the UN Charter, which includes provision for non-military sanctions.

Michael Gove: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that the Prime Minister entertained Syria's President Bashir al-Assad to tea in Downing street in December 2002? Does he regret that, on the same day, the Prime Minister wrote in the Financial Times that the president was determined to bring about "real change" in Syria, and that there were "encouraging signs"? Does he recall that, at the time, Syrian military forces were occupying the Lebanon, and that Damascus was playing host to the headquarters of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah? Does the Foreign Secretary now regret coddling that dictator when he was planning mayhem across the middle east, and will he commit himself to supporting the democratic forces that want to bring about change in Syria, instead of remaining mealy mouthed on the issue?

Jack Straw: I think that I do recall the tea; I have a feeling I was there.
	As to the rightness of our Prime Minister's inviting the President of Syria to the United Kingdom, I say this: it was the correct thing to do, and I have no regrets about that decision. It was right to invite him to see whether it was possible to persuade what was then a relatively new regime to change its ways. If we had not sought to co-operate or to put out a hand of friendship to the new regime, it would, on that regime's subsequent behaviour, have been far more difficult to get the consensus that we were able to achieve in the Security Council yesterday.
	As to our being mealy mouthed, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads resolution 1636. He will see that its terms are anything but mealy mouthed and impose severe obligations on the Government of Syria in respect of the investigation into the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. It spells out, too, the consequences that will follow if they fail to co-operate.

Ian Taylor: The Foreign Secretary must regret many of the meetings that he has had with leaders in certain countries around the world.
	The Foreign Secretary must surely draw the conclusion that Syria is continuing its reputation for undermining neighbouring countries. What is actually happening between Syria and Iraq? What Syrian insurgency is going on in Iraq? What was the full meaning of the American military operation that took place two days ago on the western border of Iraq, which appears to have been a message to the Syrians?

Jack Straw: On the latter point, I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy in the Library, because I do not have full details.
	On the involvement of Syria in interference in neighbouring countries, the Quartet issued a strong statement last Friday calling on Syria to stop allowing Islamic Jihad and other rejectionist terrorist groups to operate from within Syria. Syria has been denying that that is the case for some years, but everybody in the region knows that it is. The patience of the international community is running out in that respect.
	As to Syria's involvement in terrorism in Iraq, we have sent strong, clear messages to the Government of Syria that they must secure their borders and must, for example, introduce a visa regime to Damascus airport so that those who travel by air, if you please, in order to become insurgents or, worse, suicide bombers can be stopped. The Syrian Government said two days ago, at long last, that they intend to introduce such a visa regime. If that is so, it is progress, but only small progress. What Syria must now understand, in the face of unanimous condemnation by the international community, is that its old ways, under both father and son, have to change, and to change both in terms of Syria's own peace and security and for the future of its people.

Keith Simpson: Sadly, from what the Foreign Secretary has just said, it is clear that the Syrians have a track record of refusing to comply with either bilateral or international pressure. It is obvious that the Syrians are not going to co-operate fully with the United Nations. Can the Foreign Secretary say why sanctions were not included in the most recent resolution, given that the Syrians appear only to move, very slightly, when they face the direct threat of action. Merely warning them again and again seems to produce no result whatsoever.

Jack Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about Syrian intentions. I do not think that it is to be taken for granted that Syria will not co-operate. The Syrians were profoundly shocked, I think, by the anger, and the unanimity of that anger, in the Security Council yesterday.
	On sanctions, resolutions inevitably depend on our gaining consensus so that the terms cannot be vetoed. What we were seeking, provided the terms were not watered down too much, was unanimity, so that Syria got a tough message from across the international community. Immediate sanctions were never in any of the drafts that the United Kingdom put forward, and I   should be happy to share some of the earlier language with the hon. Gentleman if he is interested. There is, however, a clear undertaking to consider further action—in other words, sanctions—if Syria does not now co-operate, as it has not co-operated in the past.

Zimbabwe

Nigel Evans: When he last met his counterpart in South Africa to discuss the security and economic situation in Zimbabwe.

Jack Straw: I last discussed Zimbabwe with South African Foreign Minister Dr. Zuma on 21 September. I will see her again on 7 November at   the   EU-South Africa Co-operation Council in Brussels. I will again impress on her the very fast deterioration in conditions in Zimbabwe. Tens of thousands of Zimbabweans remain homeless after their Government's callous eviction campaign and nearly 3 million people are in need of food assistance over the next six months. Inflation has reached 360 per cent. in the past year and is still rising, but the Government of Zimbabwe have just seen fit to reject offers of United Nations assistance. I discussed that yesterday with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and I strongly endorse the statement that he issued yesterday which expressed profound concern about the situation in Zimbabwe. While sanctions imposed and tightened by the European Union and the United States are necessary, southern African nations have a key role to play in pressuring the Government of Zimbabwe for change.

Nigel Evans: With inflation running at 360 per cent., GDP set to fall by 7 per cent. this year, 700,000 people being evicted from their homes, 75 per cent. of people   living below the poverty level, the Government refusing food aid, 3,000 people a week dying of AIDS-related illnesses and ambulances running out of fuel, Zimbabwe is a paradise lost. What extra action does the   Foreign Secretary believe that South Africa in particular, and sub-Saharan African nations in the regions generally, should take to give the people of Zimbabwe some help and some hope for the future?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to be angry and concerned about the situation, and his feelings are shared on both sides of the House. The situation is frustrating, because southern African nations are the   ones suffering the most—apart from the terrible   plight of the Zimbabweans—from the wrecking of Zimbabwe's economy and society by Mugabe. However, trying to persuade them to take action or even to put strong pressure on the Mugabe regime is hard going. We will continue to do so and to take every opportunity to do so. I just hope that southern African leaders understand the urgency of the situation, not only for the people of Zimbabwe, but for their own societies which are now suffering high levels of unemployment, asylum seekers and infections such as HIV/AIDS, which   now infects a quarter of the total population of   Zimbabwe, as a result of Mugabe's criminally irresponsible policies.

Kate Hoey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, but in view of the continued atrocities and the ban on Ministers travelling, can he explain why two officials from his Department and three officials from the Home Office, who visited Zimbabwe recently to examine the asylum seekers issue, paid a courtesy call to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the immigration department? In answer to a written question, I was told that those were courtesy visits.

Jack Straw: We do have diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. I happen to believe that that is right and is also a way to ensure that the interests of the 70,000 to 80,000 British passport holders in Zimbabwe are protected. It also ensures that we have a good flow of information and understanding about the situation in Zimbabwe. That being so, I am afraid that we do have to follow common courtesies in respect of our relations. The other option would be to break off those diplomatic relations. The visit by the officials was not a courtesy visit: it was to see whether—and if so, in what circumstances—those who are returned to Zimbabwe as failed asylum seekers suffer as a result of the regime. My hon. Friend will know that those circumstances were the subject of a recent judgment by the High Court.

Alistair Burt: I received a fax this lunchtime from six Zimbabwean asylum seekers who are currently detained in my constituency at Yarl's Wood. They travelled on South African passports, which is a well-known escape route and they are due to be deported to South Africa, despite the current ban on returning Zimbabweans to that country. They are terrified by the prospect because of the known close relationship between the Zimbabwean and South African security forces. Can the Foreign Secretary guarantee the safety of those women if they are returned to South Africa; and if not, will he intervene to stop their deportation?

Jack Straw: I know of no circumstances in which individuals returned to South Africa have been in danger from the Zimbabwe Government. So I hope that I can give that assurance, and I will check on it with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary straight after this session of questions. This is a difficult issue. I, too, have failed asylum seekers in my constituency. In every case where failed asylum seekers have been returned to Zimbabwe, to the very best of my knowledge, they have not come to any harm. I understand the concern on both sides of the House, but the House is very insistent when in a different mood that, while we give a safe haven to genuine refugees, we do not provide a refuge to those who cannot justify their claim to refugee status before independent judicial authorities.

Lindsay Hoyle: I know that my right hon. Friend has concerns about Zimbabwe, but the big issue is what role the African nations can play. What role is our new high commissioner playing in trying to persuade South Africa to use some sanctions, which is what it will take if we are to break the evil regime of Mugabe? What else can we do, and what role is our high commission playing?

Jack Straw: His Excellency the Right Hon. Paul Boateng is playing a very fine role in South Africa, as all   of us would expect. There is a constant dialogue with   the South African Government at every level. The South African Government fully understand what is happening. What they will say is that their view of what should be done is different from ours. I happen to take a different view. That dialogue must continue, and we will continue it, not least in the meeting at which I shall see Dr. Zuma next Monday.

Anne McIntosh: President Mugabe has failed not only the Zimbabwean people, but the whole African continent. Clearly, the Foreign Secretary's diplomatic efforts are simply not working. From being a net exporter of food, Zimbabwe is now completely dependent on food imports. In spite of a damning UN report, no further action has been taken after the atrocities of the urban clearances. EU sanctions appear not to be working because most of the legitimate efforts are being channelled elsewhere. Will he please use his good offices to impress on the South African high commissioner to this country that our patience is rapidly running out?

Jack Straw: I will certainly do so. Of course, as I have said already, I understand fully the concerns on both sides of the House. Our EU sanctions have been strengthened. They are working. They were targeted at individuals at the top of the regime, not at ordinary people who are suffering under the regime. We have also had a discussion in the Security Council. I wish that we could have a resolution in the Security Council; but so far, we have not been able to persuade at least nine of our colleagues on the Security Council to move for a resolution. We shall continue at every opportunity to push for such a resolution.

EU Presidency

Keith Vaz: What benchmarks he has set against which he will assess the effectiveness of the UK's presidency of the EU.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend will recall that the work programme for the United Kingdom presidency was set out in detail by me in White Paper Cm 6611, which I presented to the House on 30 June.

Keith Vaz: May I welcome the progress that has been made in achieving those benchmarks? May I also congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his bonding session with the US Secretary of State recently and ask him whether he would be prepared to repeat that exercise with his EU counterparts, so that they can be persuaded of the need to ensure that the benchmarks on the Lisbon agenda are met? In the last eight weeks of our presidency, could we possibly have a little less Rice and a little more concentration on the bread-and-butter issues of economic reform?

Jack Straw: What my hon. Friend describes as my bonding session with Secretary Rice I performed only because of what is said at the top of page 4 of the work programme—namely, that the EU should strive for a better relationship with the United States—so it was just work, work and work, I make that clear. On the issue of rice, my hon. Friend will know that there are problems with the subsidisation of rice in the EU, and that issue is being raised in the Doha development round.
	I am very glad that my hon. Friend raised this question in that way. He always does his prep, and if he went down the list for the programme, he would see that, on better regulation, we have made major progress: 68 regulations have been withdrawn in the EU and 100 have been simplified. The post-financial services action plan, which is intended to secure a much lighter touch over regulation of things such as the City, has been agreed. On development in Africa, there have been major improvements, with a doubling in the promises of aid to Africa. Sugar reforms should be agreed by the Agriculture Council in November. On enlargement, we had the historic decision on time, in the United Kingdom presidency, to start negotiations with Croatia and Turkey. The UK presidency is working.

Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State has indicated that he thinks that the   boycotts and sanctions against Zimbabwe should be fully implemented and honoured. Does he believe that those boycotts and sanctions are being implemented as they should be by all countries of the European Union? How is it that Mr. Mugabe and his other fellow travellers from that brutal regime may go to France and Italy almost at will? Is that showing the effectiveness of our EU presidency?

Jack Straw: It is not true that those people go to those countries at will—there is a proper procedure. However, under this sanction regime, as is the case under any sanction regime throughout the world, there is provision to allow members of the Zimbabwe Government to have visas when they are attending international organisation meetings, just as the United States has to allow all sorts of world leaders against whom they deploy sanctions to attend meetings of the United Nations in New York.

Middle East

Richard Burden: What assessment he has made of Israel's compliance with its obligations under the road map concerning the   construction of settlements in the west bank.

Kim Howells: The road map is clear that Israel should freeze all settlement activity and dismantle all outposts built since 2001. Sadly, Israel is doing neither. Continued settlement construction in the west bank is contrary to international law and a clear obstacle to peace. We continue to call on Israel to meet its road map commitments, including on settlements.

Richard Burden: I welcome that reply. May I first express my rejection of the comments made last week by the President of Iran, which indicated that we all need to redouble our efforts for a viable two-state solution in that part of the world?
	My hon. Friend mentioned settlement building. Israel has withdrawn 8,500 settlers from Gaza and evacuated 19 square miles of territory. However, on 18 October, The Guardian reported that in one year Israel had moved 14,000 settlers into the west bank and seized 23 square miles of Palestinian territory around Jerusalem. Given that that is contrary to Israel's road map commitments and that it destroys the possibility of a Palestinian state,   will my hon. Friend say what he suggests the international community should do about that, as well as what it might say about it?

Kim Howells: A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to see for myself the impact of the great barrier, or wall, that has been built in and around Jerusalem. It is a pretty horrendous structure, but it is not easy to persuade the Israelis—I am talking about ordinary people—that it is not a good idea because it has reduced the number of suicide bombers and, most importantly of all, the number of people killed in Israel, although there was of course a dreadful suicide bomb in Hadera last week.
	The EU and the United Kingdom have made their opposition to the settlements clear. My hon. Friend has quite properly outlined the way in which Israel disengaged from Gaza, which shows that that can be done. Many settlements in the west bank are little more than converted lorry containers and caravans, and it is entirely possible that Israel could even at this stage show the kind of determination that it showed in Gaza, get the settlers out of there and start to move towards meeting the road map commitments.

Menzies Campbell: Is not the risk that the developments, which the Minister saw for himself, will make the achievement of a just and viable two-state solution difficult? The extension of the security wall to the north of Jerusalem and the proposal that it should be further extended to the east brings even   closer the day when Jerusalem will be cut off from the west bank.—[Interruption.] How can that possibly be consistent with Israel's responsibilities, either at international law or under the road map? Would not adherence to the road map and progress on it be one of a series of effective responses to the grossly irresponsible remarks of the President of Iran?

Kim Howells: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I hope that the Israeli Government, who showed tremendous imagination and fortitude in disengaging from Gaza, have the same opinion about the west bank. It is possible to begin that disengagement now, but it needs to done very carefully because, as hon. Members shouted from sedentary positions, "What about the deaths? What about the security of Israel?" They are right: Israel must have the right to defend itself, and it is doing just that.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. It will be difficult for people from the southern part of the west bank to move to the northern part, let alone the tens of thousands of Arabs who live within Jerusalem, where lots of different people have lived together over the centuries. If Israel understands the animosity that exists world wide towards the segregation of that city and the way in which it is happening, and if it weighs the balance between measures it can take to defend itself and the detrimental effects that that segregation has, then I am sure that the Israeli Government will come down on the side of saying, "Look. We don't want to put up more barriers to a peaceful, viable neighbour in the shape of Palestine. We want to try and help to facilitate that as a viable country that can thrive."

Libya

Tony Lloyd: What representations he has made to the Libyan authorities on the case of the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor relating to the infection of children with HIV/AIDS in Benghazi.

Kim Howells: We have repeatedly raised this issue at all levels with Libya. We recognise the terrible tragedy of the children infected with HIV in Benghazi, and sympathise with their families, but we have urged Libya to resolve this to the satisfaction of all parties. We are deeply concerned that the death penalty was imposed on the medical staff and we want to see them released.

Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend was right to express his concern and that of the Government—indeed, everyone's concern—about the plight of the hundreds of children who contracted HIV/AIDS in Benghazi. However, he is also right to say that it is grotesque that the medics—five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor—face the death penalty. While in prison, they have been the victims of torture and sexual abuse, and the confessions extracted are worth almost nothing in any legal process.
	Libya's progress back into the world that we want it to be in is put in jeopardy if the death sentences are confirmed. Before the case comes back to the Libyan Supreme Court, will my hon. Friend ensure that every effort is taken over the next few days to make sure that Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan authorities understand that the issue is not trivial and will be used to judge what progress Libya makes?

Kim Howells: Yes, and my hon. Friend is right to   highlight the changes that have occurred in Libya. It   has renounced terrorism, abandoned its weapons of mass destruction programmes and become a safer neighbourhood for the United Kingdom and the EU in general. I am aware of his impressively detailed report into the children infected with HIV in Benghazi and the recommendation by the Assembly of the Council of Europe, which I understand will be published at an appropriate time. The UK supports any efforts that seek to bring about the release of the Bulgarian and Palestinian medical staff, and we will continue our active engagement with the Libyan authorities to secure just that outcome.

Iran

Brian Binley: If he will make a statement on Iran's nuclear programme.

Jack Straw: The International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors, in its resolution of 24 September, declared Iran non-compliant with its safeguard obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. While in New York yesterday and Sunday, I took part in informal discussions with Security Council partners and others to consider how the international community could take the issue further forward.
	The House will also be aware that the UN Security Council issued a statement at the end of last week condemning the comments made on 26 October by Iranian President Ahmadinejad that Israel must be wiped off the map. These disgraceful comments further underline international concerns about Iran's nuclear programme.

Brian Binley: Given the concern that the Foreign Secretary refers to, especially about recent statements, do the Government still rule out discussions with groups   opposed to the Iranian regime, even though internal regime change remains an option that could considerably reduce the implied threat?

Jack Straw: Regime change in Iran is not part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government; nor do I think it would be wise.

Liam Fox: In relation to Iran, the Prime Minister said at the end of the European summit:
	"People are going to ask, 'When are you going to do something about this?'"
	What do the Government intend to do, rather than simply say, and what is their time scale?

Jack Straw: The Government are working with our European partners and now, increasingly, with the United States and the Russian Federation to ensure that the Iranian Government become fully compliant with their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. There are significant questions about the purpose and capability of Iran's nuclear programme. As yet, there is no conclusive proof that it is to be used as a nuclear weapons programme, just significant questions, and we need to be careful about what is made public and about the basis on which we make those judgments.
	Over the past two and half years there has been much frustration in the E3 process. At the same time we have, by dint of negotiation and strong pressure from the international community, managed to secure a situation in which the enrichment of uranium by the Iranians remains suspended. We intend to continue with that as well as, in conformity with the Paris agreement, putting before Iran provisions by which it may be offered guarantees for its nuclear power programme while the international community receives objective guarantees that no part of the programme can be used for nuclear weapons purposes.

Liam Fox: In any potential Security Council action China will be a major player, but China has just signed a $100 billion deal over 25 years for Iranian oil and gas. Clearly that could not be used as a reason for China to block any UN action.
	The House would expect a commitment that the Prime Minister will raise that specific issue with the   Chinese President during the state visit next week. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House that commitment?

Jack Straw: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is indeed intending to raise the matter with the President of China, as I have done repeatedly with my opposite number, Foreign Minister Li. The Government of China do have commercial relations with Iran, as do many other countries. A close relationship between India and Iran, however, did not stop India voting with the E3/US consensus on the board of governors declaring Iran non-compliant. I commend the approach taken by the Government of China. In all the   discussions that I have had with them they have sometimes taken a different view, but at every stage they have acted responsibly, and no permanent member of the Security Council wishes to see a nuclear-armed Iran. If anyone had any doubt about that, those doubts have been completely allayed by the extraordinary and disgraceful statement by President Ahmadinejad on 26 October.

Point of Order

John Maples: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I may seek your guidance. Question 10 was the only question on the Order Paper concerning the middle east peace process, and not a single Conservative Member was called. What can we do to make sure that more balanced discussions of these questions take place, other than being lucky enough to have a question come up in the first 10 on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I try to get a balance over all the   questions. The hon. Gentleman should look at the broader picture. He will note that his Front-Bench colleague wanted to ask two questions on Question 12, and I was very keen to see that that happened—so keen that I ran over time by three minutes. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the big picture, he will see that the Speaker is always fair.

Sale of Green Belt Land

Greg Mulholland: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision regarding the sale of green belt land, and for connected purposes.
	A few weeks after being elected to this place, I was invited to visit one of the farms in my constituency. Contrary to perception—representing a Leeds seat—there is a substantial amount of farmland in the middle of my constituency.
	During my visit to Wrinkle Wood farm, I learned much of the situation in which farmers find themselves. I was told by the farmer, Mrs. Jennie Clayton, that she had been approached by a company called English Land Partnership, which had bought the plot opposite, at Cookeridge Pastures, and was selling the land on the basis of future development of the site.
	I was confused because I was under the impression that the area was designated as protected green belt land. Mrs. Clayton showed me a letter and the video   that she had been given. I saw the grand plans for housing that the company had produced. Indeed, it was selling plots in this fictional development. I learned that this was the practice of land banking. I had never heard of it, and when I speak to others their reaction is the same.
	According to investor.words.com, land banking is the practice of acquiring land and holding it for future use. In reality, land banking is the practice of purchasing green belt land for a reasonable and often low price, and selling it off in plots for a substantial mark-up to private investors.
	Ironically, I am presenting the Bill in the year that the   green belt is celebrating its 50th anniversary. It is the 50th anniversary of the first Government circular telling councils to designate areas of green belt land.
	Land banking companies generally purchase green belt land for a very reasonable price but are all too reluctant to reveal exactly how much they have paid for it. Research shows that the land, if purchased at the average rate in a particular area, can be sold off for an extraordinary profit margin. Land bankers can often sell land for up to 100 times the price that they paid for   it. In my constituency, our research shows that the   average selling price for a 2,500 sq ft plot of land in   the Yorkshire and Humber area is £115. However, similar sized plots in my constituency are being sold by English Land Partnership for £18,750.
	The problem is that investors have virtually nothing to gain and everything to lose with such purchases until the land is given change of use. Then, when they have tens of thousands of pounds tied up, they realise that there are no plans for homes. Their only chance to get their money back is to get permission for development. That can put unacceptable and potentially unethical pressure on local authorities to review green belt areas.
	The success of land banking from the companies' point of view is that their development plans may become self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, having made a fortune from their sales, they need to push the process through to its logical conclusion. That becomes a benefit and not a necessity. There is a huge question mark over the character of the so-called land banking companies. All too often it is merely a get-rich scam that is being peddled by fly-by-night companies, set up to carry out the scurrilous process of land banking. There have been instances of companies being investigated for fraud and partners being banned from being directors or managers of companies.
	The real concern is the selling practices of land banking companies. There have been cases where investors were told that planning permission would be   granted within a year. In other cases, investors were assured that they would see a return on their investments within a year. The companies involved simply say that they are liable only for statements made in writing by one of their directors, thus turning a blind eye to sales people, who are often self-employed and who are making misleading claims about the likelihood of change of use.
	There are disgruntled investors not only in this country. The Australian Government are taking action against the land banker, Stephen Cleeve of the European Land Sales Partnership under the Australian Fair Trading Act. The situation in this country, however, is more complex. When approached by a solicitor acting on behalf of disgruntled investors, the Department of Trade and Industry replied that it cannot, or will not, take action against land banking companies because they are partnerships, not companies. The DTI only has the jurisdiction to investigate companies, not partnerships. Officers from the Serious Fraud Office visited farms in my constituency, but the SFO is not interested in investigating such companies, despite the mounting evidence against them.
	That is why we must seek to amend the law. The central purpose of my Bill is to protect the green belt, which covers 13 per cent. of England. Wales has only recently introduced its own green belt policy, while Scotland has a broader concept of green belt. The Barker report, which said that 140,000 extra homes needed to be built every year, has given rise to further fears that new development could eat into the green belt. The Bill would strengthen green belt legislation, as it would seek to enshrine green belt status in statute, and it would enable local authorities to designate green belt land with enhanced protected and legal status. It seeks to devolve decision making about green belt status to local authorities, removing the Secretary of State's power to overrule a local decision to refuse planning permission or designation.
	The Bill would effectively outlaw the scurrilous practice of land banking, and would require that designated green belt land can be sold and marketed only as protected land, not under the guise of any future   development. It has the support of members of   all parties and of people from all four corners of the   country. I am delighted to have the backing of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, whose head of policy, Henry Oliver, said:
	"These companies are playing a reckless, cynical game with one of our most important environmental assets. Unscrupulous sale and sub-division of Green Belt land needs to stop. It's ugly, bad for the landscape and undermines public confidence in our planning system."
	I am pleased that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip   Davies) has agreed to be a signatory to the Bill, as his constituency borders my own. The issue was raised last year by the former Labour Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, Brian White, who reported that a company called ELS stood to make £3 million from the sale of plots in Brickhill in his constituency.
	When I left Wrinkle Wood farm after learning about the practice of land banking I pledged to do what I could to raise the issue. I am delighted to introduce the Bill, and to draw the attention of the House to a genuine local concern that is also a national problem. I urge the House to grant the Bill a Second Reading, and I hope that as   more and more hon. Members on both sides of the House encounter the dangerous and dubious practice of land banking, they will give the Bill their full support.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Greg Mulholland, Norman Lamb, Norman Baker, Dr. John Pugh, Andrew Stunell, Dr. Vincent Cable, Lorely Burt, Lembit Öpik, Bob Russell, Tim Farron and Philip Davies.

Sale of Green Belt Land

Greg Mulholland accordingly presented a Bill to make provision regarding the sale of green belt land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 71].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	European Union (Accessions) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Douglas Alexander: I   beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Enlargement of the European Union is a policy that has made an enormous contribution to stability and prosperity across our continent. I am glad to say that it has always been an issue on which the House has been united. As the noble Lord Hurd of Westwell, a past Conservative Foreign Secretary, stated in 1995,
	"Enlargement is not a luxury. It is a necessity, if we are to build a safe and successful Europe for the 21st century".
	More recently, reflecting the tripartisan support that has developed for enlargement, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who is in his place, stated:
	"The ability to spread stability, democracy and economic opportunity to a wider region of Europe has been a tremendous thing for the continent".—[Official Report, 8 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1273.]
	It is in such a spirit of shared resolve that I hope we can debate the Bill today.
	The Bill before the House is narrowly drawn. It will do two things. Clause 1 will enable the implementation, under United Kingdom law, of the accession treaty signed in Luxembourg on 25 April, extending the   European Union to Bulgaria and Romania. Having   concluded negotiations with both countries in December last year, European Union member states agreed that they should join the EU. They are scheduled to do so in January 2007, but if they are "manifestly unprepared for membership", EU member states can decide to delay entry by a year. The Commission is responsible for monitoring both countries' preparations and has just produced thorough reports on them. It will   produce further reports in April or May next year. I will say more about this process in due course.

Angus Robertson: Is the Minister aware that members of the House's European Scrutiny Committee are currently meeting Members of the European Parliament? That happens once or twice a year. The Leader of the House has said that parliamentarians should increasingly work together in this way in future. Why have the Government timetabled today's important business to clash with that   meeting? Why is there not better co-ordination between the Whips Office and the important discussions between the European Scrutiny Committee and MEPs?

Douglas Alexander: There was no intention that Members   of the House would not be able to scrutinise the Bill to the degree that one would wish. I am aware that important meetings are taking place with parliamentarians from other places, as well as parliamentarians from this place. Indeed, yesterday I   had the opportunity to address the chairs of foreign affairs committees from across the EU. I can assure the House that, not least because of the   level of consensus on enlargement that the House has enjoyed in the past, it is from the wilder shores of conspiracy to suggest that the tabling was intentional.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Douglas Alexander: I am keen to make a little progress.
	Clause 2 will allow the Government to set the terms on which Bulgarian and Romanian workers will be granted access to the UK labour market after accession, for a maximum seven-year transitional period, before Community rules on the free movement for workers come into force. A decision on the level of access will be taken next year after closer consideration of the state of the labour market, other member states' decisions, and the impact of the last enlargement in 2004. It will be implemented only after parliamentary approval.

John Redwood: As the treaty is being brought in by means of amendment to the European Communities Act 1972, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Government's view that the EU has power in this country only by virtue of that Act?

Douglas Alexander: Clearly, we are ratifying a treaty consistent with our international obligations. The basis on which we are members of the EU is the decision reached in 1972, which was subsequently ratified in a referendum in 1975. That is common ground between all parties in the House.
	Let me begin with clause 1, and the enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement has been a feature of the   EU for over 30 years. The first was in 1973, when the accession of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark took place. Greece, Portugal and Spain joined in the 1980s; Austria, Finland and Sweden in the 1990s.
	The 2004 enlargement has, in many ways, been the   largest, most complex and most symbolic. The accession   of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia set the seal on the cold war division of Europe. It is a real and substantial achievement of the European Union.

Ian Davidson: Does the Minister, like me, recall that many of us who welcomed these accessions were told that they would be impossible without the acceptance of the European constitution? Yet the European constitution has fallen and these countries are still being allowed to join. Is not that a peculiar situation?

Douglas Alexander: It is not a comfortable matter for me   to disagree so absolutely with my hon. Friend, but I   think that his recollection of events is somewhat misplaced, in the sense that the possibility of the enlargements of which I spoke has always been clear, not least on the basis of the Nice treaty.
	The accession of Bulgaria and Romania will add an additional 30 million consumers to the European Union single market. That creates new opportunities which our companies are already keen to secure. For example, Vodafone has just bought out the largest mobile phone operator in Romania. Bulgaria and Romania have made great strides in recent years. The prospect of EU   enlargement is encouraging them to make the political, judicial and economic reforms necessary before becoming full members. Bulgarian growth has consistently been double the EU average over the last   five years, and successive Governments have successfully halved unemployment over that period. Romania has brought inflation down from more than 100 per cent. in the late 1990s to around 8 per cent. today, and has successfully attracted more foreign direct investment than any other state in south-east Europe.
	As I mentioned earlier, the Commission produced detailed and rigorous reports on both countries, which were published last week. In presenting those reports, Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said:
	"Bulgaria and Romania have achieved significant progress so far in their preparations for accession. But the jury is still out".
	The reports highlighted a range of areas in which Bulgaria and Romania need to make urgent progress if   they want to be ready for accession in 2007. There are some important general issues that both countries need   to address. Corruption remains a serious problem in both countries, undermining public and business confidence, and they need to take urgent and vigorous action to tackle it. Part of the problem lies in their justice systems, which need further reform. Bulgaria must also tackle head-on the problem of organised crime. The daylight assassination last week of a high-ranking financier in Sofia demonstrated starkly the scale of the challenge.
	In the coming months, the Commission will continue its rigorous monitoring of the progress that both countries are making, targeting in particular the areas of serious concern identified in the reports published last week. It will then produce further reports next April or May.

Andrew MacKinlay: I hope that the   Minister can explain something that I do not understand. In relation to the 10 who recently joined, there was no guarantee of membership almost right up to the very end point, at the 11th hour before accession. Under this procedure—uniquely, it seems, in the history of enlargement—Bulgaria and Romania are guaranteed accession by 2008 under the treaty, so we would be reliant on the infraction procedure to get compliance and enforcement after the event. Why were the ground rules altered for these two as compared with previous accessions?

Douglas Alexander: I disagree with my hon. Friend's characterisation of the relative rigour with which the Union recognised the challenges of the 10 in 2004 and Bulgaria and Romania in the present day. There is the super-safeguard clause in relation to the possibility of deferring membership for Bulgaria, for Romania or for both, as well as several safeguard clauses that I will discuss later.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Minister mentioned the assassinations in Bulgaria, but went through that point rather quickly although it is very important. There have recently been many press reports that the Bulgarian Government have been using the secret police to wipe out some of their political opponents. It is a very serious issue and I should like the Minister to look into it before allowing Bulgaria to steam ahead with membership.

Douglas Alexander: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are procedures whereby the European Commission is able to ensure the rigorous standards that all of us, as members of the Councils of Europe, are able to uphold in terms of potential accession to the European Union. I am not aware of the specific allegation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and if he wants to write to me, I   will, of course, consider it, before passing it on to the appropriate authorities. The brevity of my reference to the recent assassination does not mean anything other than that we are dealing with it seriously. I have sought to reflect the due seriousness with which we regard the   challenge of organised crime, which, as last week's reports drew out, is a significant issue for Romania and particularly Bulgaria.

Wayne David: On Bulgaria, does the Minister accept that the recently elected coalition Government, led by Sergei Stanishev, have gone a long way to tackling those problems by introducing a new criminal court, which should be very effective?

Douglas Alexander: I am certainly willing to welcome that. A broader question is how to address the practical challenges concerning high-level trials of those who are charged with corruption and legal changes, and I am convinced that the answer is to take forward the rigorous process that the European Commission set out last week in its report.

Ian Paisley: The Minister knows that the Commission does not have a good record on scrutiny and cannot stop fraud in its own offices. How can it act as a superior to those new members?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman has raised the   important and historic concerns about fraud in the European Union that have been ventilated in this House on a number of occasions. Commissioner Olli Rehn from Finland, who is responsible for enlargement, certainly holds the respect of those Labour Members who want to see a European Commission that is genuinely rigorous in the pursuit of potential accession countries. If hon. Members were, like me, privy to the discussions on the accession of Turkey to the European Union, they would be in no doubt about the seriousness with which the European Council now regards the objective criteria against which candidate countries are judged.
	Given Olli Rehn's personal statements and the terms of last week's European Commission report, it is clear that he personally and the Commission generally take seriously the rigour required by not only the European Council, but the citizens of Europe on countries seeking to join the European Union. In the coming months, the Commission will continue its rigorous monitoring of the   progress that both countries are making, targeting the areas of serious concern identified in those reports. If there is still a serious risk that either or both will be manifestly unprepared for membership in January 2007, the Commission can recommend delay by a year. And the Commission can also, if necessary, impose targeted safeguard measures to tackle problems in specific areas. We will need to consider the next Commission reports carefully and, if they recommend delay, decide how best   to respond based on a careful assessment of UK interests.

Anthony Steen: Is the Minister concerned, as I am, about child trafficking over the border into Romania and Bulgaria and then into western Europe? Is he aware that such child trafficking often involves child adoption and that millions of pounds pass through the hands of the gangs involved? The issue is not specifically mentioned in the report, and I wonder whether we should be concerned about it.

Douglas Alexander: We are concerned about both those issues. On child trafficking and people trafficking more   generally, it has been suggested that one or both   of Romania and Bulgaria are both sources and transit countries for that outrageous and disgusting trade. I   assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is a   cause for continuing concern, and I see that my hon.   Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality concurs with that view.

Tony McNulty: indicated assent.

Douglas Alexander: The matter is best addressed by more effective and deeper co-operation between member states of the European Union. Those of us who share the   ambition to stop that outrageous and unjust trade in humans must work together effectively, and the European Union provides an architecture that allows us to give practical expression to that shared commitment.
	We are confident that both countries can be ready to join the EU on schedule in January 2007. However, they cannot afford to be complacent, not least in the face of the challenges that have been described. They need to take robust action now to address the concerns that the Commission identified in the reports. Of course, we will continue to provide bilateral and other assistance targeted at the matters that matter most. For example, we already have three advisers working in Romania on   tackling corruption. The accession coincides with ongoing discussions on the next financial perspective for   the EU from 2007–13—that was discussed in the   Chamber only this afternoon—and the cost of the enlargement remains largely a matter for negotiation.
	That said, most EU expenditure on Bulgaria and Romania has been provisionally agreed for 2007–10, assuming that accession takes place on 1 January 2007. That will total approximately €15 billion over the next three years. Of that, roughly €5.5 billion will be devoted to agriculture-related spending and approximately €8 billion to structural funds. I stress that those are indicative figures. Of course, that is a significant amount of money by any standard.
	However, as hon. Members will know, most of the costs of accession are borne by the new member states and the objective is to ensure that, over time, net recipients start to contribute to the EU budget. Spain   and Ireland are good examples of that. Of the newcomers, Slovenia and Cyprus's purchasing power in terms of GDP per capita overtook that of Portugal this year.
	Let me consider clause 2. Under the terms of the   accession treaty, the UK has the ability to decide the level of access it offers Bulgarian and Romanian workers up to a maximum of seven years after accession. Clause 2 gives the Government wide flexibility in deciding that. With accession more than a year—possibly two years—away, it is simply too early to decide what the level of access should be. We may want   to continue the current work permit scheme. Conversely, we may decide to offer more lightly regulated access, along similar lines to that given to workers of the eight central and eastern European countries that joined in the 2004 enlargement.

Keith Vaz: I urge my right hon.   Friend to adopt the same practice as our Government used in the previous enlargement. He will remember the hysteria on the Conservative Benches, with predictions of all these Poles and Lithuanians coming into the country to take our jobs and our women and go on benefits. That never happened. Those people make a huge contribution to our economy. I say to my right hon. Friend, please do not leave it too late—we left it very late last time. Let us take a firm course of action and show the rest of the EU what we mean by leadership.

Douglas Alexander: As my hon. Friend suggests, we showed considerable bravery at the time of the previous accession. I believe that subsequent events have justified that. I listened with interest to my colleague the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality when he discussed the matter on the "Today" programme this week. He made it clear that, on the basis of the recent figures that were published in June, the individuals in question have not been a profound burden on the UK welfare state or the taxpayer. Many have made a significant and valuable contribution to the dynamism of the British economy and the strength of the labour market.
	The workers who come here are mostly young and do not all work in London—only 20 per cent. are based there—but choose to work throughout the UK. They make a valuable contribution to our economy and our   society. They are employed in a broad range of industries from health care to business administration to farming—industries where there would otherwise be serious gaps in our labour market. They contribute to the UK's economic growth and our tax revenues without being a burden on the state. Of course, the position can change. That is why we intend to make a decision on the amount of access we   grant Bulgarian and Romanian workers on the basis of the requirements of the labour market closer to the date of accession and after consideration of other member states' decisions. The Home Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the   Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will all be involved in the process.

David Jones: Does the Minister know that, in the boundaries of Moldova, approximately 1 million Moldovans hold Romanian nationality or are entitled to a Romanian passport? Have those individuals been included in his calculations?

Douglas Alexander: As I was seeking to make clear, we have not made a calculation at this stage. The presumption on which the hon. Gentleman's question is based is therefore fallacious. We want to consider all the   relevant factors at the right stage. That is why the prudent approach that we have taken in the Bill—with its enabling clauses that will allow us to reach the right decision on the basis of the information available at the time—is the correct one.
	As Members will be aware, enlargement is an ongoing process. Under the UK presidency, the European Union has opened accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia. We have also opened negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement—the first major   step in the accession process—with Serbia and Montenegro, and hope to do so soon with Bosnia and   Herzegovina. Later this month, we will be considering a Commission assessment on whether Macedonia is ready to become a candidate country.
	Of course, this process is evolving. Indeed, the option of delaying accession by up to a year is a good example of one such refinement. It was first introduced for Bulgaria and Romania. The European Union must be rigorous in ensuring that all the requirements for European Union membership are met.
	As I said at the outset, European Union enlargement has always enjoyed strong cross-party support. The last accession Bill to come before the House received 491 votes in support at this stage, in May 2003. This consensus has enabled the UK to play a leading role, I   am proud to say, in driving forward a policy that is fundamentally in our interests, in the interests of our European Union partners and in the interests of the two accession states.
	I hope that today we can once again come together and send a clear message in support of Bulgaria and   Romania's accession to the European Union. Of course we have to ensure that they are ready for membership, and we will do so. But today I believe that we can be optimistic that two important partners will soon become members of an enlarged, outward-looking Europe seeking to meet the challenges of coming decades. I commend the Bill to the House.

Graham Brady: The Minister was good enough to acknowledge not only that the Conservative party was a long-standing supporter of the European Union's enlargement, but that it was among its first supporters. The House will remember Lady Thatcher's famous speech in Bruges in 1988, in which she insisted that the European Community, as it then was, should stand not only for the small Europe of the rich west but for the whole of Europe, including those nations then in chains behind the iron curtain. It is therefore with real pleasure that we receive the Bill, and, when the time is right, we shall look forward to extending a warm welcome to the new accession countries. It should be a source of pride that there has always been cross-party consensus in Britain on the enlargement of the European Union. Some members of the EU have been afraid of a wider Europe and have, from time to time, sought to hinder that objective.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he recall that Edward Heath opposed enlargement because he was fearful that his vision of a strong, centralised western Europe would be undermined by eastern Europe?

Graham Brady: I think that the new Labour dictum is, "Concede and move on." We have learned that.
	We have always championed enlargement because we know that the European Union's true destiny is not to be a counterweight to America or to shut out globalisation, but to spread and sustain freedom, democracy and prosperity throughout our continent.

Mark Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when the Nice treaty was put before the House, the Conservatives insisted on having a referendum on it with a view to voting it down? Do not the Conservatives support enlargement like a rope supports a hanging man?

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman also knows that the   Government claimed that the constitution was necessary for enlargement. We did not believe that, and we have been proved right. We were also right about the Nice treaty.
	The European Union has helped to nurture the development of free societies in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and that same process can now benefit Bulgaria and Romania. Romania and Bulgaria have had unhappy histories in the past century. They were fought over by the Nazis and the Soviets and enslaved by communism. It is to those countries' enormous credit that they have come so far so fast since they became free in 1990. They have had to relearn not only democracy and the market economy but the more fundamental principles that underpin a liberal society: the rule of law, tolerance and respect for freedom. It has not always been easy going for them. Nor, as I shall explain later, may they be quite there yet.
	The attraction of EU membership has been of huge importance as an incentive to all the former communist countries to choose a liberal future, free from the authoritarianism that has done so much to damage that part of the world. The accession process is not an easy one. Indeed, it is far harder than it should be. Much of the so-called acquis communautaire that these countries have to adopt is totally unnecessary and, indeed, damaging. Nevertheless, it is a tribute to their leaders that the European Union has been able to accept their candidature. I also congratulate my colleague Geoffrey van Orden, the European Parliament rapporteur on Bulgaria's accession.
	The Commission communication of 25 October raised a number of serious concerns about Romania and Bulgaria's readiness for the hoped-for accession date of   1 January 2007. The Minister will be aware of Commissioner Olli Rehn's remarks—indeed, he quoted some of them. The Commissioner said that while
	"over fifty per cent. of all areas monitored are non-problematic",
	the Commission had serious concerns about 10 per cent. of areas. In particular, he said
	"The failure to obtain even a single . . . conviction for high-level corruption in recent years . . . is a . . . serious concern in both countries."
	Does the Minister envisage any prosecutions taking place before accession can be agreed?
	The Commission's report states that immediate action is needed in a range of sectors if Romania and Bulgaria are to be ready for 2007. It gives many sombre specific warnings. The list is a long one:
	"urgent and forceful action is needed to demonstrate the ability of Bulgaria and Romania to combat corruption effectively . . . both countries suffer from high levels of piracy and counterfeiting . . . Bulgaria and Romania do not possess sufficient border infrastructure . . . . specific restrictive measures may need to be imposed to prevent the internal security of the EU from being compromised . . . Bulgaria has failed to curb organised crime . . . here too the rule of law must be made to prevail . . . animal disease control is flawed in Bulgaria and Romania as serious diseases appear to be endemic."
	That last criticism has particular salience given the current concern about avian flu. The report also doubts that either country yet has the capability to manage the structural funds to which they would be entitled. Given the Commission's long-running inability to audit its own expenditure, that is a real concern.

Wayne David: Let me make the same point that I made earlier. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, in the case of Bulgaria, the new criminal procedures court deals with many of the concerns expressed by the Commission?

Graham Brady: It is a very good instance of the progress that has been made, but we need to see it being used, and we need to see evidence that those measures will start to bite in dealing with organised crime and corruption in both countries.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend mentioned border security with Romania and Moldova. That is important, because a part of Moldova called Transnistria, an independent republic—I hope I have pronounced it correctly—is a very dangerous place, run by criminal gangs. I hope that the European Union provides enough funds for the Romanians to protect their border from infiltration from Moldova and Transnistria.

Graham Brady: As I am still struggling to learn how to pronounce my hon. Friend's name, I am particularly impressed by his greater ability. He raised an important point, to which I shall return.
	Every Member hopes that all the problems identified in the report can be overcome by 2007, but the Government must address the possibility that they will not be. What is the Government's assessment of the likelihood of the criteria being met? If they are not, what course does the Minister recommend? Should accession be delayed until 2008 or should the accession itself go ahead but with certain provisos, such as delayed access to the single market? If the latter, how long might the delays last?
	Do the Government endorse the Commission's assessment? What conversations about that has the Minister had with our partners and with the European Commission? Is there a prevailing view among his colleagues? If one country is judged to have met the criteria but the other is not, should both countries' accession be delayed, or would the Government prefer to see their candidatures judged separately? Does the Minister consider it right that the Council could delay Romanian accession with a qualified majority, whereas unanimity would be required to delay Bulgarian accession?

Andrew MacKinlay: Why is that?

Graham Brady: I am asking the Minister to reply to that question.
	Whoever decides those questions must look both backwards and forwards. Some might say that, in certain cases, the accession criteria were assessed broadly for the great enlargement last year because the political imperative was, after so long, to make that enlargement happen. But given the immense challenges that lie ahead in respect of an enlargement involving Turkey, Croatia and the rest of the western Balkans, and perhaps Ukraine, we must not give those countries the impression that standards can be fudged. Turkey would be rightly aggrieved if we judged its success in meeting EU standards by a stricter measure than that which we used for other countries. We must make it clear that that will not happen.

John Redwood: I am pleased that my hon. Friend thinks the acquis communautaire too bulky and often unhelpful. Would it not be a good idea if the Government, at the same time as negotiating with the   candidate countries, tried to get Commissioner Verheugen to understand the need to cut the acquis communautaire substantially in the interests of competitiveness and prosperity in the EU?

Graham Brady: My right hon. Friend makes an important point and that was one of the great missed opportunities of the British presidency. During Foreign Office questions earlier today, the Foreign Secretary referred to several directives that are being withdrawn, but nearly all of them do not apply to this country or are out of date in any case. The importance of identifying a great slew of things that do not need to be done by the EU has been missed, which is a tragedy.
	We have looked at the issues that need to be addressed in clause 1, but the Commission's report also has implications for clause 2, which deals with regulations concerning the free movement of workers, with particular regard to the transitional period of up to seven years.

Angus Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many businesses throughout the country depend on the hard work of Poles and other people from the last round of accession countries? Would he care to revisit the Conservatives' position at the time of that accession and say whether he thinks it was right to oppose the opening of the UK market to workers from the 10 accession countries?

Graham Brady: I shall deal with that point. One thing that we should learn from the previous expansion is that the Government's figures and predictions were entirely wrong, not least because the UK responded differently from our EU partners. The Government have to consider how to learn from that experience and what its implications are as we approach this latest expansion.
	The Home Office's predictions for immigration from the accession 10 were spectacularly wrong. In 2003, it predicted that net immigration from the new member states would be between 5,000 and 13,000 a year to 2010. In fact, in the 14 months alone between 1 May 2004 and 30 June 2005, there were 232,000 applications for the workers registration scheme, of which 220,000 were accepted.

Stewart Hosie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Brady: No, not at the moment.

Keith Vaz: Will the Minister—the shadow Minister—give way?

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman is previous in referring to me as a Minister. I shall give way shortly.
	What are the Government's predictions for migration flows from Romania and Bulgaria in the event of expansion going ahead? How have they revised their methods in the light of how wide of the mark the previous predictions were? The accession treaty provides for the suspension of the free movement of workers in whole or in part if member states undergo or foresee serious disturbances of their labour markets. Given what has happened since May 2004, we can anticipate that many Romanian and Bulgarian citizens will want to come to Britain. There are strong economic reasons why many may want to do so. According to the Commission's most recent figures, both Romania and Bulgaria, despite their high rates of growth, still enjoy an average gross domestic product per head of only a little over 30 per cent. of that of the EU 25.
	There are other concerns that the Government must take into account. The Commission's report raises the serious problems of organised crime and inadequate border controls. There is also people trafficking, which was also mentioned earlier. As the House knows, that problem is particularly severe in Moldova and Ukraine, both of which share a frontier with Romania. The Government must address that issue very seriously.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the shadow Minister for Europe for giving way. He has not answered the   question put to him by the hon. Member for Moray   (Angus Robertson). We are concerned not about the Government's predictions, but about the hysteria generated by the Opposition at the time of the   previous enlargement, which was totally unjustified. The Minister said that the Government will consider the matter nearer the time. What is the Opposition's position?

Graham Brady: If anyone is hysterical, it is the former Minister for Europe, and not the shadow Minister for Europe. The Opposition want the Government to give a clear answer as to what their approach will be. The countries involved are quite poor when compared with the rest of the EU 25. There will be considerable pressure and the hon. Gentleman should say whether he believes that there is a limit to the amount of inward migration that the UK can accommodate. The Government do not appear to know the answer to that question.

Anthony Steen: Will my hon. Friend the shadow Minister give way?

Graham Brady: I cannot resist.

Anthony Steen: I might be able to help my hon. Friend. Is he aware that the average wage for junior public officials in Romania is between 50p and £1 an hour? On average, policemen earn about £1,000 a year and doctors £3,000 or £4,000. Is not that part of the problem that must be addressed if Romania and Bulgaria are to become full members?

Graham Brady: I am overwhelmed by my hon. Friend's   detailed knowledge of public sector salaries in   Romania. It is helpful, but we still do not know whether the Government regard that as a cause for concern. The Minister refused to say earlier. Although the Government misjudged completely the impact of the previous enlargement, he thinks that it is too soon to say what the impact of this one will be.
	Given the problems, what restrictions on the free movement of workers from Romania and Bulgaria do the Government propose? The Minister said that it was too soon to decide, but he could have given some indication of the Government's current thinking. He said that a decision would be taken closer to the time, perhaps in a year, but that is not good enough. The Government must have some plans or proposals for how they might react if the accession date of 1 January 2007 is met.

Stewart Hosie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Brady: No, not at the moment. What arrangements do the Government expect to have in place for the initial national or bilateral two-year period following accession? The date of 1 January 2007 is very near and, if it is to be met, the Government must have some plans and proposals.
	Do the Government expect to extend national measures or bilateral arrangements for the rest of the   transitional period? How will they monitor the suitability of their arrangements and what opportunities will they give Parliament to scrutinise and assess them? At a time when fears about further enlargement are taking hold in some EU countries, it is important that we make this enlargement a visible success. We need to get it right, and that means proper planning and forward thinking from the Minister and his colleagues.
	Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr.   Davidson), the Minister will have noticed that the accession treaty allows for the EU constitution to be in force, or not to be in force, or to be abandoned. I know that the treaty was signed before the referendums in France and the Netherlands, but does not the Minister find it extraordinary that there is no acknowledgement that the constitution has been democratically rejected?
	The Opposition's position on the constitution is very clear. It is dead, and it would be utterly wrong to try to resurrect it. Will the Minister enlighten the House about the Government's view? Which of the three possibilities that I outlined does he expect to apply in 2007? He could be bolder: which of those possibilities would be the Government's preference? Perhaps he will not be that bold.
	The Minister will recall that one of the arguments   deployed on the constitution's behalf by the   Government was that an enlarged EU would collapse in chaos without it. He may remember that the Prime Minister went so far as to say that the constitution was necessary to make accessions work. We said at the time that that was rubbish. We have been proved right since and the Bill makes the point again. The EU has many problems, but its current structures are coping perfectly well with an EU of 25 members and no one thinks that the accession of two more members will make matters worse.
	The constitution was not about making an enlarged Europe work—it was about another agenda entirely. Will the Minister be gracious enough to admit that that particular line of spin has been shown to be plain wrong and that the Prime Minister's words were nonsense?

Ian Davidson: Does the shadow Minister accept that he is being a trifle ungracious in attacking the Minister for Europe on the collapse of the constitution since, as we all know, the Minister bears a heavy share of the credit?

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman is always more gracious in his criticism of his Ministers than I am, and that was no exception.
	The constitution is unnecessary, but other aspects of   the EU should change. Its current policies, especially the common agricultural policy and the budget, are unsustainable for an enlarged Europe. Romania and Bulgaria have large agricultural sectors and the 10 new members are not yet being paid the full agricultural subsidy that they will be due—and that is not to mention the profoundly destructive effects of the CAP on the developing world and world trade.
	This latest enlargement is just one more reason for further reform of the CAP and the EU budget. The Government have been exceptionally well placed to do something about that, because we currently hold the EU presidency. Yet, whether through incompetence or timidity, or both, they are doing very little. Neither the budget nor CAP reform was on the agenda for last week's curtailed summit. Worse, we were astonished to discover from written answers to me last week that the Government have failed to make any detailed proposals on CAP reform or any proposal whatever on the budget. The Government are receiving a wealth of criticism from all quarters for their handling of the presidency and it is wholly justified. There are two months of the presidency yet to run. The Government need to get their act together fast.
	The EU is already creaking. It does too much and much of what it does, it does badly. It is unresponsive to   what the peoples of Europe actually want. As the Information Society and Media Commissioner recently admitted, for too long it has been a project for a small political elite. We want the EU to be a success in the 21st   century for an enlarged Europe. For that to happen, it must change. It must become more accountable. It must recognise that the federalist agenda of ever closer union is the fast lane to a dead end. It should return powers to the member states, where the states are better suited to wielding them. It must become a real force for open markets.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend may not have noticed that there has been some chuntering during his comments that remarks about reform of the European Union have nothing to do with Bulgaria's and Romania's accession. May I put it to him that they have everything to do with it, because we are talking about what the European Union is going to look like in the next few years? In a week in which it looks as if the Doha talks may collapse because of France's intransigence over the CAP, reform of the CAP has everything to do with the future of Europe and with Romanian and Bulgarian accession.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That intervention is very helpful in giving me an opportunity to say that the Bill is quite narrow and about the two countries to which it refers. We are not having a general debate about Europe.

Graham Brady: As ever, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance, but it is crucial that we should bear in mind the shape and structure that will apply to the two new countries—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point I am making is that it is all right to refer to that in passing, but devoting your time to the generalities of Europe is not what I am looking for.

Graham Brady: I am passing, Mr. Speaker, and approaching my conclusion.
	The EU, with enlargement, must become a real force for open markets, free trade and a freer, safer world. The EU can become a liberating force for good in the world, or it can become an economic and political backwater. The constitution's fall has left the EU in flux. Leadership with clear vision and the skill to turn that vision into reality could set a new direction for Europe.
	The accession of Romania and Bulgaria is an important part of our vision for a wider, more flexible EU. If those countries can meet the criteria for membership, it will be a triumph for them and a cause for celebration, but very real concerns remain about the   readiness of the candidate countries and the Government's approach. We shall continue to monitor progress and to press the Government to ensure that both countries fully meet all criteria before accession takes place. We look forward to welcoming Romania and Bulgaria as members of the EU, and that is why I   shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill this evening.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Brady: No, because I am moving to the conclusion of my remarks, but it is always a shame not to hear from the hon. Gentleman.
	It is important to recognise that much hard work remains to be done to demonstrate that those countries are finally ready for membership. Their progress to date gives grounds for optimism. I hope that the support of this House will give them further encouragement.

Doug Henderson: I strongly support the Bill, because I strongly support the principle—and, I hope, the practice—that Romania and Bulgaria should be given the opportunity to join the European Union. It will not be an automatic process, as earlier exchanges between the occupants of the Front Benches showed.
	It is not easy to meet the acquis, and it will be difficult for Romania and Bulgaria, just as it was for the other countries of eastern Europe. It is not only the politicians and the bureaucrats of the countries, but the people who need to be inspired to meet the acquis. The challenge now is even more difficult than it was five, six or seven years ago, because at that time it was conclusive that   joining the EU was the right thing to do. In 1995,   1996 and 1997, the EU was a forward-looking organisation that played an important role in the world, with strong economies—especially in Britain after 1997—and a sense of social responsibility and common purpose. So it was easier to inspire the people of the countries seeking to accede to the European Union with the conviction that it was the right thing to do.
	In today's climate, the people of Romania and Bulgaria will ask the same questions, and will have to weigh up whether the gains will be greater than the doubts. I have no doubt that the gains will outweigh the   doubts, but before the people of those countries reach that conclusion they will ask several questions about accession and the EU. Those questions will be similar to those that are being asked in Britain and the other member states.
	I recall visiting Bucharest in 1997 and talking to people on the streets. They were very conscious of their   country's history over the past 40 years. They supposedly lived under communism, although I think that they lived in a state that was nearer fascism—it is a matter of political definition. They had no freedoms, there was little collective social responsibility and the state was isolated. That was not just political theory; it felt very real when walking the streets of Bucharest. I was there on a wet November day—it bore some resemblance to parts of Newcastle or Glasgow on a bad day—and noticed all the Soviet-style buildings that had been imposed on Romania, which is Francophile, if anything. Public services were poor and there were many beggars and other obvious signs of poverty on the streets. There was also a clear sense of   corruption and a fear of being caught out, because if that happened, those exercising the corruption could impose their will on the individual concerned. I remain convinced that the people of Romania—I suspect that the same is true of the people of Bulgaria—wanted to put that behind them and look forward to a better way.
	That was what people were looking for then, but judging the specifics today—this is my main point—is not so straightforward. Things have improved in Romania and Bulgaria as they move towards the acquis and become more involved with the rest of Europe and the world, but there are, of course, still gaps that must be filled in meeting the acquis.

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend describes today's EU as something quite different from the EU of 1997, when he was Europe Minister. I certainly agree with him, but is not the difference that whereas the EU, with the accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland, was then a rich man's club, since the last accession in May last year people are looking at the EU as something other than a rich man's club and are beginning to wonder whether they want to pay the bills?

Doug Henderson: My hon. Friend's observation is right. I would make the further observation that, although he and I think that extending the rich man's club is desirable, there are arguments among the rich men about how much they should pay and what they should get. That is one of the things that people are looking at in Romania, and I hope to say more about that, although I do not want to abuse the time available.
	The people whom I met in 1997 were told that the EU was about common purpose, being positive and so on. Today, they will be assessing that against how they see what is happening in the EU from the south-east of Europe. They will be looking at issues such as the constitution. For me, the constitution was about managing the EU better. That view is not held by all hon. Members. Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the constitution was about the EU's   powers and the relative powers of the different EU institutions. We have the luxury, in a civilised and relatively prosperous place, to look at the EU like that, as part of a genuine political debate, but it is not a matter of life and death; nor is it about the future of our society.
	For people in Bulgaria and Romania, this is a matter of the future of their society, and we have already heard about the economic power of those countries and their GDP per capita. They are asking what accession will mean. I do not know whether they saying that the powers will change, or whether they are looking for a better management structure, but that question will be asked keenly, especially when the various technicians in those countries consider how to meet the acquis. They will also consider the budget. They will say, "We are relatively poor people. What will being in the EU be like for us? Do we know the budget's overall size?"
	We probably do know the budget's size—we have debated the 1 per cent. figure in the House before—and people in Romania and Bulgaria in south-east Europe will look at the EU and say, "We know the budget's overall size." Pleasingly, they will be able to see that virtually everyone in the EU is committed to moving the funding away from western Europe and towards the   eastern European side of the EU. However, they cannot yet work out what will happen between 2007 and 2013—to which reference was made during Question Time—so although they will know that they will not be major contributors, they will not know how much they will receive to develop their economies and their society. That is an important issue in Romania and Bulgaria, when we are trying to persuade people that the EU is a good thing and that there is a need to work hard to meet the acquis.
	People in Bulgaria and Romania will also ask about the implications of other questions. If they join the EU, how will they relate to their neighbours? Will Croatia or Turkey become part of the EU in the future? What policy implications will that have for Bulgaria and Romania? Those questions are not yet answered, but looking from south-east Europe, both the Bulgarians and the Romanians can say that there is a relatively enlightened view about those matters. There is a willingness to extend the EU into areas such as Croatia and Turkey, but what the conditions will be and which acquis they must meet are unknown. However, that will generally be a positive thing when people in Romania and Bulgaria consider how they might achieve the acquis.
	The most important thing for the people of Romania and Bulgaria will be the fact that joining the European Union will lead to an irreversible shift in the political situation in which those countries and peoples find themselves. If they join the European Union, they will know that there will be no return to the communism or neo-fascism that led to all the horrors that they had to face for 30 to 40 years. The people of Romania and Bulgaria will know that joining the European Union will mean one zone, one political culture, one democracy and one set of human rights, and that will convince them of the necessary way forward.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is giving the House the benefit of an extremely thoughtful analysis. In preparing himself for giving that analysis, did he consider the alternative for   those countries? If they did not become members of the European Union, it would be difficult to envisage how they would break out of the cycle of corruption and inadequate economic development.

Doug Henderson: I agree with many matters that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises—I find myself in that camp again today. There is no democratic alternative for those countries in the medium and long term. If accession negotiations failed with Romania, Bulgaria and the other countries to which we have referred, they would have nowhere else to go, unless an   undemocratic totalitarian tendency emerged in south-east Europe.
	People will look at the strengths of the European Union. The strong fight against terrorism and unity against terrorism are strong aspects of the Union. Given the Union's unity when helping the rest of the world to come on board economically through various forms of assistance and aid, countries such as Bulgaria and Romania could explain to their people that they would be joining a worthwhile organisation.
	I have no doubt that when the people of those two   countries consider the issues—assuming that they   meet the acquis—they will think that turning north-westwards will mean that they can end their isolation and bring themselves into a democratic world. They will have a guarantee that the EU will insist on human rights being maintained in their countries, if they cannot do that themselves. They will have a better opportunity for economic prosperity than they would have otherwise. I thus hope that the House will give the Bill its Second Reading.

Nicholas Clegg: The Bill underlines an intriguing paradox. It is the latest step in a remarkable process of enlargement that the European Union has successfully prosecuted almost in spite of itself. Economic gloom has been prevalent in the European Union and there have been disagreements about foreign policy issues, such as Iraq. The ill-fated constitution has collapsed and there is malaise among EU institutions. Despite that, the European Union has somehow remarkably managed to expand in a few short years from roughly 350 million citizens to about 475 million citizens, and with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria the figure will soon be just over 500 million. By anyone's reckoning, that is an extraordinary triumph of hope over pessimism.
	Enlargement has always been driven by the geostrategic good sense of consolidating liberal democracy throughout Europe—I say that in a non-partisan, if somewhat wistful, fashion—and the moral duty to reunite a divided continent. It is thus ironic that such good sense and moral purpose seem to have prevailed at exactly the time when the European Union has been fractious and introverted, as has certainly been the case in recent years. While getting Bulgaria and Romania up to the starting line and launching the process of enlargement has been a remarkably positive process, one big question looms: how do we make enlargement and an enlarged European Union socially, politically and economically sustainable? Many difficult questions are therefore posed of existing members of the European Union, as well as the new applicants and members.
	I have two general observations and one specific observation. First, enlargement and an enlarged European Union, as some hon. Members suggested, will not be possible unless the public and political case is made to electorates throughout the EU in more forceful terms than has been the case hitherto. We have seen the profound sense of unease and anxiety among electorates in other parts of the EU when voting on the European constitution, in which unrelated and, in my view, unfounded fears and anxieties about the process of enlargement were brought to bear on the debate.
	We like to think that public opinion in this country is solid and uniformly enlightened. However, as the prospect of, for instance, Turkish membership hoves into ever closer horizons, I suspect that public opinion will equally prove to be more volatile than has been the case until now. Advocates of a more diverse and wider EU have a great incentive to unite to make the case not only for Romania and Bulgaria's accession, but for potential members elsewhere, lest we allow fear and anxiety to overshadow the benefits of enlargement more generally.
	My second observation is that Romania, Bulgaria, the 10 countries that joined in May 2004, Turkey, if it were to join, and any other potential applicant will not find that the EU provides the benefits for which they hoped if there is not a greater consensus about what the EU should and should not do. It is unrealistic to imagine that a highly integrated political and economic club of such a size and diversity as the EU—now 25 members, soon to be 27, and no doubt more after that—can act effectively if it is afflicted by constant internal political bickering. That will take time to overcome.
	The EU is in a moment of transition from one form of integration to another. No one on any side of the debate quite knows what that pattern of integration will be in years to come. We may require a new generation of political leaders. Change has already occurred, if in somewhat half-hearted fashion, in Germany. It is likely to take place in Italy, France and this country, too. Whoever is in charge in the future needs to re-create a consensus that has been lost. Without that consensus about the fundamental purpose of the EU, the glue that is necessary for such a diverse club to hang together will disappear. The risk of long-term disunity—I suggest mischievously that that might be why some advocates of enlargement have always been so supportive of it—in an organisation with such a large membership is real and needs to be addressed.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Is not the serious division at the heart of Europe about economics, as the elite try to thrust on it a neo-liberal version of the economy that people do not want? If we could agree on a more relaxed social democratic approach, it would be much more popular with everyone.

Nicholas Clegg: I do not recognise that characterisation of the debates, which undoubtedly exist, about economic policy. If one compares any of the EU social and economic models with what exists in north America, one would have to agree that there is a degree of unity in the mix of economic and social policies that is, perhaps, a little more progressive than the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic analysis suggests.
	The process of accession must be rigorous, credible and thorough. That is why I applaud the rigour and detail of the European Commission's report on Bulgaria and Romania. It is not fashionable to praise the Commission, but anyone who reads its report will be impressed by the detail and independence with which officials assessed the validity of the claim from Romania and Bulgaria to join.
	It would be a disservice to Romania and Bulgaria, let alone the rest of the European Union, to let them in unprepared. There is always some risk when allowing new member states into the EU because they make promises today which will not be fulfilled tomorrow, next year or for a number of years. One is necessarily making a bet, but the trick is to minimise that risk. That is why I urge the Minister to take very seriously the warnings and the potential use of safeguard measures set out in the Commission's report.
	I urge the Minister also to address himself to the crucial question raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). There is an unusual safeguard mechanism that would allow the Council of Ministers, on the back of a report from the European Commission in, I think, spring next year, to defer final accession for another year, but that is not much of a threat if it is merely a deferral by 12 months of a process that will then conclude on 1 January 2008. I am a passionate supporter of Romanian and Bulgarian accession, but I believe that this is when we have the greatest leverage over political developments in those countries and, as the Commission's report has highlighted in sometimes chilling detail, there is a great deal to be done.
	I urge hon. Members to look at page 7 of the report, which covers everything from the total lack of enforcement of animal welfare rules and the absence of the administrative capacity necessary to absorb EU structural and agricultural funds to the lack of the rule of law in dealing with corruption. It says of the latter:
	"The unambiguous enforcement of the rule of law is a precondition for any country aspiring to EU membership",
	yet the analysis clearly shows that such enforcement is absent. Concern is also expressed about the lack of border infrastructure. The report says:
	"Specific restrictive measures may need to be imposed to prevent the internal security of the EU from being compromised."
	Enormous change will need to happen in Romania and Bulgaria for those things to be remedied.

Angus Robertson: Has the hon. Gentleman happened on the parts in both reports that highlight the challenges both countries face on the treatment of minorities, not least the Roma population? Does he hope, as I believe he does, that those countries will do everything in their power to solve a deep-seated, if not centuries-long, problem? Not much time is left to change quite a lot in both countries.

Nicholas Clegg: Indeed. That is merely one on a long list of outstanding issues that need to be dealt with in Romania and Bulgaria. It reinforces the point that if one wants to encourage those countries to make those political reforms, and to apply pressure, one needs to exercise leverage at the best time, which is now. The effect of that leverage will be blunted if accession is guaranteed—it may be a guarantee that is deferred by 12 months, but it   is a guarantee nevertheless.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman is making some good points, but does he accept that there is a slight danger of being too strict—stricter on this occasion than we were during the last accession process? I am thinking particularly of how Slovakia was dealt with. Is there not a danger of unequal treatment?

Nicholas Clegg: I imagine that it would be difficult to apply a perfect measure of consistency. In the last process, 10 countries were allowed to accede in one bloc, and there is inevitably greater scrutiny when only two countries are under the microscope. That in no way diminishes the objective importance of dealing with all the administrative, social, legal and ethnic issues in the way laid out so clearly by the Commission.
	In the next few years—it may be later rather than sooner—the House may find itself debating Turkey's membership of the European Union. That will be an altogether more complicated and controversial exercise than this debate. It will not be possible to have a rational political debate about such a controversial step as accepting Turkey into the EU if the rigour and credibility of the enlargement process has not already been proven. The manner in which we examine Bulgaria and Romania's case and decide over the next few months whether those countries should join and on what terms sets an important precedent for the debate that we shall no doubt have in some years to come on Turkey.
	With those caveats in mind, I conclude by saying that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I strongly support the Bill's Second Reading. We hope that the rest of the House will join us in doing so.

Kevin Barron: I am pleased to take part in the debate. I have had a long-standing interest in Bulgaria and its people over many years. I   first travelled to the country in 1985 as a member of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. It was the first democratic centralist country that I had visited. I was not enamoured of its politics, but I was enamoured of its people—that was my experience and that of my colleagues—and I have kept in close contact with Bulgaria ever since. On my return I was asked to be an officer of the all-party Bulgaria group. I accepted that invitation and for the past decade I have been the chairman of the group.
	I hope that the House will forgive me for talking about Bulgaria in terms of my views on what has happened there. I have visited Romania, but I have more knowledge of Bulgaria. While the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is in his place, I should say that I had not intended mentioning workers from those countries coming to the UK. The hon. Gentleman will remember, however, that last year there was a big row about work permits being issued to people from Romania and Bulgaria. I remember that the Opposition sailed the Sheffield whistleblower into a television studio to say how awful the system was. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench then initiated an investigation into the issuing of work permits to people from Romania and Bulgaria. As a result, a hold was put on applications.
	Within about two weeks of that decision being taken I received a phone call from an agency—I suppose that that person would be called a gangmaster—in Essex. I   also received a call from Sofia. I convened a meeting because there was a crisis in Essex at the time. The gangmaster from Essex attended the meeting, as did a gangmaster who had flown over from Bulgaria. There were three Conservative Members present, who had come along because of the mess in Essex agriculture. It was fruit picking time and all the permits under the temporary agricultural workers scheme had been stopped.
	There had long been links with Sofia university, and for many years, under different Governments, students studying English at that university came to Essex to work as fruit pickers. They would earn some money and learn English in, as it were, the mother country. There were terrible problems at the time. I brokered a deal that involved the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who is now a Minister. I phoned them to explain that if we relaxed the stop on the temporary agricultural workers scheme so that the students could come to this   country and the fruit could be picked, everything would be all right—and it would also ensure that there would not be another row in a television studio. As far as I am aware, the solution worked very well.
	There are strong links between Romania and Bulgaria and the United Kingdom. There is no great threat from people from either country coming to work in the UK. Many people from those countries do so now, and many have done so for decades.

Stewart Hosie: On the broader point of making Europe more and more competitive, particularly in relation to the United States, labour mobility should be   encouraged and supported. Our concern should be driven mainly on levelling up trade and professional qualifications, rather than trying to debar skilled, talented and enthusiastic workers from not only the UK   but the rest of Europe, not least to fill the skill gaps that many countries have.

Kevin Barron: That is quite true. Unfortunately, we do not hear such debates on EU legislation.
	As I said, my connections with Bulgaria go back 20 years, as I first visited the country in May 1985. My   second visit was in 1990 as an elections observer, and that was followed by another two visits with the Inter-Parliamentary Union in the 1990s, when we saw genuine changes in the nature of politics and political parties. The Union of Democratic Forces came on to the   scene in the early 1990s. The only part of its   ideology that I could grasp was the fact that it was anti-communist—I did not know where it stood either economically or on anything else. However, it was testing the changes that were taking place. In 1985, Tzum, the big supermarket in Sofia, had plenty of things on its shelves, but in the 1990s there were only broken biscuits. Because of the country's closeness to Russia, its economy was shattered by the changes in eastern Europe and it took a long time for it to recover.
	There have been many changes of Government in Bulgaria, all of them affected by changes in an economy which, with the exception of the past five years, was in a negative condition. Elections were held in June this year, when there was a fightback by the Bulgarian Socialist party—the new name for the Communist party. In 2000, I was invited by General Secretary Sergei Stanishev, who has since been appointed Prime Minister, to his party's congress. I went to Bulgaria on a family holiday and stopped at Sofia for the 45th congress of the BSP—quite an achievement, because the party had existed for only eight years. International observers, however, witnessed genuine debate in the BSP among old communists and new members such as Sergei, about the need to change both their ideology and their view of the outside world.
	There have been changes both in Bulgarian political parties and in the nature of the country's Parliament. After my visit in early June 2002 to the BSP congress, I   was invited to visit the country as a guest of the British   embassy and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. On 1 July, I made a speech on ethical standards in public life and the experience of the British Parliament. I arrived early, however, to participate in   a   weekend seminar with Bulgarian Members of Parliament on standards and privileges. The day before I was due to give my speech at the embassy, I was asked to give an interview to a daily newspaper in Sofia. I was asked about standards in public life, but suddenly the reporter asked what I would do if traffic police impounded my car. A Bulgarian MP had had a falling-out with the traffic police after his car was impounded. He went to the pound and demanded its return, banging his fist on the counter. He was caught on CCTV, and was hounded by the media about the incident. I told the reporter that such behaviour would not be allowed in Britain, as Members of Parliament could not get away with using their influence in such a way. Two days later, a motion was passed in the Bulgarian Parliament to introduce a standards and privileges committee based on the British model. That Parliament has therefore learned a great deal from us over the years.

Anthony Steen: We thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us a guided tour of Bulgaria, which we find fascinating, but may I bring him back to the subject of the debate? I   have never been to Bulgaria, although, having heard what he says, perhaps I will go. Is he not concerned about the Commission's report that organised crime in   Bulgaria is increasing? My hon. Friends and I are worried about what will happen when Bulgaria enters the EU, unless certain Chinese walls are put up by the Commission to prevent organised criminals moving west.

Kevin Barron: I know I have gone on a bit, but I will come to that topic before I sit down.
	The UK is the third largest investor in Bulgaria. Some of our major firms are there. Through the all-party group, I have contact with British businesses based there and I have been there to talk to British business men in years gone by. Last year 259,000 British tourists visited Bulgaria, not just to ski or for the sun—many are buying property in Bulgaria. Many of our constituents now have property there.
	No one would deny that Bulgaria has problems, particularly organised crime, which is dominated by several large criminal groups whose activities are accompanied by turf wars and inter-gang violence. Just last week there was a shooting incident in Sofia. Other speakers have mentioned the problems of Bulgaria's borders. There is no doubt that the country is a transit area for the smuggling of people and drugs from Afghanistan into Europe.
	Hon. Members should not think that no effort has been made to stop drug trafficking from Afghanistan through Bulgaria. I have spoken to our agencies, which have worked with the Bulgarian authorities for years to   put a stop to that. There are problems with the movement of drugs in this country as well, which we find difficult to control. It is said that only 5 per cent. of what comes into the UK is caught, but no one knows whether that is the true figure.
	Several hon. Members mentioned organised crime and the steps that Bulgaria is taking to tackle it. The Commission's report earlier this year considered the   problems in some detail. The Bulgarians do not deny that problems exist—far from it. In The Economist this week there are comments from the Prime Minister about the situation there. Bulgaria had elections in June, but it was not until September that a Government were formed from a coalition of three parties. Consequently, legislation that would go to the heart of the Commission's report has been delayed.
	The new criminal procedure code that was mentioned was adopted by the national Parliament on 14   October.   The code avoids any overlaps and ensures that the pre-trial system is efficient and transparent. Nobody denies that there are problems with the judicial system—there certainly are. In addition to the criminal procedure code, which is expected to be introduced in six months, another positive development has been the   reform of the pre-trial phase and the decision of the constitutional court, which was taken on 1 September this year. There is also a new draft law on the Ministry of the Interior, which was adopted on its first reading by the national Assembly on 6 October 2005.
	Bulgaria's efforts to sort out its problems should not   be dismissed. It is working to do so with the help of the Commission, the UK Government and some of their   agencies, and other EU Governments and their agencies. There is a determination to overcome their   problems. No one should doubt that Bulgaria and Romania will join the EU. We have accepted that. The debate now is about whether it will be in 2007 or a year later. There are many problems, one of which involves the Roma people in Romania, which I have seen at first hand on more than one occasion. We deal with similar problems on a smaller scale in some of our communities every day of the week.
	The biggest event in my political life was not entering the House, but the fall of the Berlin wall, getting rid of   ideology in Europe, and the change in our lives. I   welcome the further step of Bulgaria and Romania's accession, which will be a change for ever.

Ian Paisley: I shall not deal with Bulgaria, but I shall deal with Romania, with which I have had personal contacts for a very long time. I give a broad welcome to the fact that both countries are applying for membership of the European Union. I   strongly believe in the widening of Europe, but I am not so sure about the deepening of Europe. However, that is a debate for another day. No wonder the Minister for Europe smiles when I say that.
	If one country in the whole of Europe needs our help, it is Romania. It has endured a very difficult period. I am afraid that the whole story will never be written of the sadness, sorrow and persecution—especially religious persecution—that its people suffered. There is a strong Baptist denomination in Romania, and the Baptists were at the receiving end of much persecution. One of the leaders of the Baptist union showed me a calendar on which the birth of Christ had been removed and in its place put the birth of the dictator who ruled the country. If they had not agreed to that, no calendar would have been allowed to be printed.
	A friend of mine is very fluent in the English tongue and he was offered a good position as an interpreter. He refused, because he was handed a script that differed from what the person said. It was written by the dictator and put into the mouths of officials and consuls from other countries, and he had to read it. His punishment was that his wife, a doctor who worked in a hospital some five miles from the capital city, was ordered to walk to and from her work every day. She had to rise early every morning and walk five miles, and then walk five miles back every night after a gruelling time. One of the main Baptist churches that enlarged its premises was refused the right to have any toilet accommodation.
	Those were the persecution tactics of a regime that, thank God, is no longer there. But some of its fellow travellers are still there and they are not keen on seeing democracy and freedom in their fullness. I welcome the fact that Romania is going to make its way towards alleviating long years of sadness, sorrow and bitterness. I should like that to be encouraged, but it must be encouraged along the right road. The facts show that there are great difficulties in Romania. It is estimated that the country lost $2.5 billion over a few years due to the levels of corruption. From January to October 2002, more than $1.5 billion was illegally transferred abroad. Crime is at a high rate, with masterminds of evil behind it. Romania needs all the help that it can get.
	I am not enamoured with the Commission. I sat for   25 years in the European Parliament, and the Commission could have done a lot more to deal with fraud in its own offices, but it refused to act. A former leader of the Labour party was put in charge of tackling fraud, but he was unable to settle the matter, so the fraud went on—if he could not settle it, it must be dug down into the ditches and well covered over. This House must say to the Commission that if the Commission is going to inspect others, it should inspect itself and put its own house in order, which would give us more confidence.
	No hon. Member, and especially not those of us who want the EU to be broadened, wants to keep those two   countries out of the European Union. By broadening the EU, we will have far more freedom than by deepening it and by tying it into our constitution, which would form a straitjacket. That is a debate for another day and I fear the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker, who may even whisper to the Clerk—once the Clerk and   Mr. Deputy Speaker get together, it is goodbye— [Laughter.] I have heard that laughter for many long years.
	In conclusion, we wish those two countries well. They are taking steps that will be opposed even in their own circle, but they are taking them because they see a better way ahead. We also wish the Minister well. He has been honest at the Dispatch Box and has faced up to the issues. I hope that I am still in this House to welcome those two countries into a Europe that is really free.

Keith Vaz: I am certain that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) will be in the House when Romania and Bulgaria join the EU, because, as far as we know, there will be no general election until 2010. I congratulate him on his forthcoming elevation to the Privy Council.
	It must be a special Bill to unite the Ulster Unionists, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish nationalists, the Welsh nationalists and everybody else. I have a feeling that there will not be a vote tonight and that the Bill will proceed with all parties consenting to the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, but things might happen between now and the   end of the debate, so we must wait and see. When previous accession Bills were presented to the House, they were passed with substantial majorities and no one opposed them.
	The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has left the Chamber, but earlier he said that the Conservative party has always supported enlargement. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) reminded him that the present chairman of the Conservative party—for the time being—was shadow Minister for Europe at the time of the Nice negotiations and was very much in favour of a referendum on the Nice treaty, which would have blocked the countries that joined so successfully on 1 May 2004. I know that memories are short, but it is worth remembering that fact.
	This Government have always championed enlargement. Since the Prime Minister took office in 1997, he has mentioned EU enlargement in every speech that he has   made in continental Europe. In particular, he set out what type of Europe he wanted to see develop in his speech in Warsaw in 2000, when he made it clear that it would be a prime achievement for this Government if Poland and the other countries then applying were allowed to join, which they did in 2004.
	We are welcoming Romania and Bulgaria a little late because they started their negotiations at exactly the same time as other countries that have subsequently joined. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) was right to remind us that the process is difficult and laborious. He was also right to commend those countries for going through the acquis communautaire to such an extent. Of course, all 35 chapters have to be agreed to and fulfilled; the acquis must be completed in full.
	Congratulations are due to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. We are in the middle of our presidency, which some have described as low key, but I believe that it has been extraordinarily successful. We are not only presenting the accession Bill on Bulgaria and Romania to Parliament earlier than many of our partners—only three other countries, together with the European Parliament and Romania and Bulgaria, have ratified—but the Government decided on 3 October to switch on the green light for beginning accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia. To paraphrase the hon. Member for North Antrim, I hope that I am in the House—I know that the Minister will be because he is much younger than me—when the accession Bills for Turkey and Croatia are presented to Parliament.
	All the arguments have been eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), the Minister, the shadow Minister for Europe and others about the importance of Bulgaria and Romania joining a united Europe, which provides a huge trading area. Those countries have been our partners for many years. I do not know as much about Bulgaria as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who had to leave the Chamber to chair the Yorkshire group. He spoke with great knowledge of Bulgaria. When I was Minister for Europe, I visited it for only eight hours. Similarly, I visited Romania for only seven hours. When one is a Minister in those circumstances, one never quite gets a feel for the country. However, as those countries approach their accession, I imagine that there is a great deal of hope about their entry into the EU.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) asked my hon. Friend the   Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North what the alternative was. It is, of course, staying out, which means being isolated. When so many people are prepared to criticise the EU, why is there a queue of countries waiting to join? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam reminded us that we are always debating a crisis—the European constitution, which the French rejected, problems in European policy, no agreement on the budget and so on. Everyone tries to exploit the problems in the EU but today we are discussing a genuine good news story, which will greatly benefit the people of Europe and ensure that, at last, we can share our experience throughout the continent. As we all know, Romania and Bulgaria will not be the last countries that want to join the EU.
	Clause 2 deals with the worker registration scheme. I   am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality is present because he replied to a parliamentary question from me on 11 July, saying that he did not believe it was appropriate at this stage to review the scheme, although a review was promised for two years afters its introduction on 1 May 2004. My hon. Friend offered me some good news: there is no backlog in dealing with the scheme—most of the applications are processed in a few days and 90 per cent. are processed in four weeks. That is a great credit to the Home Office, with which I and others hon. Members, including the Minister, who have heavy immigration case loads, often find cause for concern. The scheme works quickly and that means that decisions are given quickly.
	I was very much against the scheme when the Government introduced it. I felt that there was no need for a registration scheme if we were sending out a message to new member countries that they were equal partners with the United Kingdom and that their citizens should have the same access to our country as ours have to theirs. At the time, there was hysteria from the Conservatives—

Daniel Kawczynski: No!

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman says no, but there was hysteria. The Conservatives said that all these people would come over from the 10 countries and steal our jobs and those of our families and children, and that they would cause havoc in our inner cities and all go on benefit. It was going to be a disaster. Oh, it was going to be dreadful! The Leader of the Opposition was even proposing to go to Luton airport to make a list of all the people arriving from Warsaw or Krakow.
	In fact, none of that ever happened. We had a highly successful enlargement, involving 232,000 people coming here. Of those, 1,700 applied for income support or similar benefits, but only 800 were granted those benefits. The others were refused. So, according to the figures that I have received—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if they are wrong—only a handful of those 232,000 people have gone on benefits. What are the rest doing? I have heard that they are doing great things in Essex, and I know from what the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has said that they are doing great things in Scotland. I also know that they are   doing great things in my city. They are European citizens who are contributing to the economy of our country and thereby making our country stronger.
	German and French Ministers must be kicking themselves that they did not show the foresight and leadership that was demonstrated by our Ministers in making this decision. If we believe in a Europe that treats all its countries as equals, we must also treat the citizens of those countries as equals, and that is what the   United Kingdom has done. That is why there is so much good will when our Prime Minister goes to the Council of Ministers—as he did at Hampton Court recently—and why the new members of the European Union treat our country with such respect. They know that we have shown leadership on this issue.

Daniel Kawczynski: The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservatives made a real fuss about all these Poles coming over. I speak as someone of Polish background, and I know that the total freedom for Poles and people of other nationalities to come over is causing a great many problems for services in their own countries. There is now a severe shortage of dentists and nurses in Poland because they are all coming over to the United Kingdom—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if we tried to look forward rather than back. The scope of this debate is very narrow, and I do not think that we should dilate too far beyond its boundaries.

Keith Vaz: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was definitely not going to dilate on this point. However, I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman. He has a huge role to play in his party because of his background. First, he needs to tell to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West how to pronounce his name, because the hon. Gentleman said that he did not know how to do so. Secondly, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and all other hon. Members have a role to play in ensuring that our constituents understand the benefits of the enlargement outlined in the Bill. This is not just about passing a Bill in the House. It is also about campaigning on the issue of enlargement, and we need to ensure that that happens. The hon. Gentleman has a role to play in ensuring that it happens in his party.
	On clause 2, I know that the Minister needs to consult the Home Office, and that the Home Office will have to   consult the Department for Work and Pensions, but I believe that we need to be much clearer on the issue. I know that my right hon. Friend cannot make a decision on it today, or give us an answer on it when he winds up the debate. This involves a long process, but it is important that we have clarity on the matter. He says that we must wait until nearer the time of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria for a decision to be made, and I understand why he does so. All that I ask is that we do not wait until a few weeks before accession, by which time the Opposition will have built up the kind of hysteria that we have just heard in the speech of the hon.   Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. He spoke of the relatively low wages of policemen, and the hon.   Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) reminded us of the low wages of other people.
	That will build up over the next two years. We must lance the boil at an early stage. I know that we cannot have a decision now, but it is in the interests of Romania and Bulgaria, in the interests of our entry clearance operation and in the interests of the Home Office, which still has to deal with the cases of people from Romania and Bulgaria—principally the Roma who are already in this country and seeking asylum—for the matter to be clarified to some extent. Let us not leave it until everyone becomes hysterical again; let us have a decision as near as possible to the final decision. Otherwise we shall be left where we were on 1 May 2004, rushing legislation through the House and causing upsets among our European partners just before they come into the European Union. Clarity would be very helpful.
	My final point is the one made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. We must engage with the British people on the European issue. I know that the Minister has travelled a great deal over the last six months, and he performs his job superbly as the champion of enlargement. I raised this point in passing with the Foreign Secretary during Question Time today. It is all very well going to Alabama and bonding with Condoleezza Rice, but we have the presidency at least for the next eight weeks. We are pushing forward legislation before most of our EU partners. Let us engage with the British people. I know that it will be difficult to do it before the end of the year, but let us go out and campaign on Europe. Let us be proud of being good Europeans, and let us continue to show the leadership that we have shown over the past eight years in Europe so that we can fashion the future according to our vision of what we want to happen.

Tony Baldry: Until he started dilating, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith   Vaz) made rather a good speech.
	I think that we should see enlargement as a significant success not just for the European Union, but for United Kingdom foreign policy over a number of years. When Britain, under Harold Macmillan, first applied to join the then common market, Charles de Gaulle—who vetoed our application way back in 1963—explained that British accession would mean
	"another common market . . . one that would be taken to 11 and then 13 and then perhaps 18 . . . It is not at all what France is doing or wants to do."
	One of his Ministers, Jean-Marcel Jeanneney, added that if the grouping expanded beyond its original six members it would become a more free market, closer to the United States and increasingly Anglophone. In all those respects, he has been proved right. The European Union has spent much of the past 20 years liberalising markets and admitting countries—Nordic or eastern European—where English is established as the second language. I think we should see enlargement not only as something inherently democratic that has widened the European Union, but as something that has benefited the United Kingdom as a whole and enhanced our collective vision of Europe.
	We should also recognise, however, that enlargement of itself is not enough. I have been in the House long enough to see a number of accession Bills, including the one that enabled Spain and Portugal to enter the European Union. There is a danger that we shall leave the debate having accepted this Bill's Second Reading without a vote, feeling a warm glow about the forthcoming entry of yet another two countries to the   European Union. We must recognise that a phenomenal amount of work has to be done within the EU, and with that in mind I shall make two brief points, the first of which concerns competitiveness.
	There is no point in bringing countries such as Bulgaria and Romania into the EU if we are to fall behind other parts of the world. It is very good that the Prime Minister and other Heads of Government paid attention to this issue last week at Hampton Court. However, we have to look to markets such as China, and to recognise that certain EU labour markets are in severe danger of becoming sclerotic. We must recognise that no one in the world owes Europe a living; we have to compete with the rest of the world.
	Secondly, unless we can learn how to reform the EU,   we will never make any progress. Perhaps the most important thing that will happen between now and the   Christmas break is the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Hong Kong. Last week, the French finance Minister—not the French agriculture Minister—made it clear that the common agricultural policy as it stands is a foundation stone of Europe that cannot be changed in any way. He used dramatic language, saying that if the CAP were reformed in any way, we would have future pandemics. I recommend that Members read the report of his comments in the Financial Times of 27 October.
	We are not seeing any significant movement from the EU on the WTO negotiations on the CAP. It would be a real tragedy if the Doha development round collapsed because Europe was incapable of recognising that it can no longer sustain the CAP in its current form—that it is no longer right in a world in which so many face starvation. Enlargement is of course extremely good news. For those of us who grew up in the shadow of the cold war and who were teenagers in the late 60s, when we experienced the frustration of the tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia, the later falling of the Berlin wall was probably one of the most fantastic days of our life. So it is wonderful that these countries are joining the EU, but let us not equate that alone with progress.
	An enormous amount of work has to be done in the EU to make it remain competitive, and to reform basic institutions such as the CAP. Every single cow in the EU   today attracts a subsidy of $2, yet many millions of people throughout the world are still scratching a living, and living on less than a dollar a day. So the livestock that one sees in a field on going down a country lane each receive twice as much in subsidy from the EU than many people in the world are living on, which is obscene. The House, the country and the Community must address these issues. If the French effectively stymie Peter Mandelson's efforts to achieve a successful WTO   Doha development round, that will be a disgrace.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) will not take it in bad part if I choose this moment to remind the House of Mr. Speaker's earlier ruling concerning the narrow confines of this Bill. I must advise hon. Members that I   shall be getting a little stricter on the content of their speeches if it is not directly related to the Bill.

Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome the opportunity to speak about, and to express my happiness at supporting, a Bill that paves the way for the future EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania.
	I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), although I hope that that does not worry him too much. By coincidence, I too was in Bulgaria in 1985. I did not know my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) then, but it is possible that we both went shopping in Sofia at the same time. Like him, I found the Bulgarians very charming, and the visit was a wonderful experience. However, I should say that I was merely enjoying a skiing holiday, not doing anything useful.
	I want to talk about clause 2, which deals with workers' freedom of movement, and the regulation of workers from abroad. It is essential that all workers, foreign or otherwise, are regulated in their employment, and that they have the proper documentation and pay tax and national insurance. Foreign workers should be paid properly, at a rate comparable with domestic workers. They should not be used as a cheap labour force to undermine the wages and living standards of workers in the home country.
	It is fine to use foreign workers to fill skills gaps and to make up employment levels when there is a shortage of labour. That happened here after the war, when a lot of people arrived to do the jobs for which we could not find workers. Many of the people who stayed here live in my constituency, and I believe that the experience has been a happy and valuable one for both us and them. Their presence has made ours a more diverse society, which is a good thing.
	We should encourage foreign workers to join trade unions, and ensure that their conditions, protections and standards are the same as those enjoyed by their counterparts from this country. They must not be exploited, or used as a weapon to undermine wages in Britain.
	Labour flexibility is not acceptable if it becomes merely a way to drive down wages. That could lead to difficulties in the EU. I have told the House before about my holiday in Portugal a few years ago, when I saw a building site with a sign in Portuguese that said "No   Flexible Labour". If flexibility were to pose a threat to workers, it could lead to political changes that would go against the trend of the EU at the moment. Regulation must be used and properly enforced, for the protection of foreign workers and of our employment standards.
	I welcome the prospect of EU membership for Bulgaria and Romania. It will benefit those countries, and the EU as a whole. I strongly favour enlargement, as I think that it will change the nature of the EU, making it a much looser arrangement of democratic states. Indeed, that has happened already.
	That is my vision for the future of Europe. I do not want the EU to become a superstate, or an organisation driven by the Commission or the European Central Bank. I want there to be mutual co-operation across Europe between democratically elected Governments and their peoples.
	I think that we can all accept that vision, as it allows a variety of approaches to economic management. Each European nation should be free to choose its approach democratically, not have it imposed from outside.
	I hope that the process of enlargement will continue. There is no doubt that Bulgaria and Romania are European countries. Their culture is European, and they have made great contributions to European history and art. Before the second world war, Bucharest was regarded as the Paris of the east. Romania's language is derived from Latin, and its culture and tastes are like those of other European countries. Indeed, my favourite pianist is the Romanian Dinu Lipatti, and I own many   CDs of his wonderful playing. Bulgarian music is   equally marvellous: we have many links and associations with Bulgaria and Romania, and we will feel very at home with them in the EU.
	As I have said many times in this Chamber, Europe's problems have to do with economics, and primarily with agriculture. The economies of both Bulgaria and Romania depend heavily on agriculture. They are big producers of agricultural products, and it is possible that they stand to benefit from the CAP. Of course, it is not being extended to them immediately, or even to countries that are already in the EU. There is a serious problem with the CAP, which causes distortions in fiscal transfers across the EU. It is coming to the end of its life. It has to be challenged, because it continues to make rich countries net recipients of budget funds and poorer countries net contributors. That process could get worse unless we abolish it.
	There is much talk of reform, and we have had many reforms of the CAP, but it has not essentially changed and still has a distorting effect. It is unfair to have a CAP benefiting rich western European nations and not being extended generously to poorer eastern European nations with large agricultural sectors. I look forward to a world in which there is no CAP and in which we have our own domestic agriculture policies and are free to buy relatively cheap food from Romania and Bulgaria, among others. That would be a sensible way forward after the CAP has gone.
	The future of the budget must be based on equity. If it is equitable for every member of the EU, we will all support it. At the moment, it is not. The only way to make it equitable is for receipts and contributions to   the   budget to be proportionate to our relative prosperity, so that rich nations are considerably greater net contributors and poorer nations perhaps net recipients, although it may just be that all of us make contributions but richer countries pay proportionately more. If the budget is related to our prosperity, everyone will think it fair and it will be objectively equitable. The CAP makes that impossible, and it should go.
	I would also argue strongly that nations—Bulgaria and Romania, in particular—should be able to choose their own macroeconomic policies. They should be able to choose how to run their economies to make sure that they grow. They should not have imposed on them from outside a particular model of economic management that might be to their disadvantage, and which, I think, would be. If they could retain their own currencies for the foreseeable future, they could choose an appropriate parity, which would be to their advantage. If they could choose their own interest rates to suit their domestic economies, that, too, would be sensible. If they could choose their own fiscal policies—levels of taxation and public spending—that would be a good way forward. If they were not told that they could not use state aid to develop their industries, that would be a good thing. If   the EU says that they cannot use state aid, that might cause them not to grow and could damage their economies, making it more difficult for them to attain the kind of living standards we take for granted in western Europe. The European Union should butt out for the time being on those matters for those states, and for some existing member states.
	The Bulgarian lev is, apparently, pegged to the euro   at the moment. I suggest that pegging is fine, but becoming a single currency, which gives no possibility of flexing the value of one's currency, would be a terrible mistake for Bulgaria and Romania, especially in their present relatively weak economic situations. A pegged currency is very different from a single currency. The peg can change from time to time, and we in Britain ought to retain that position, too.
	Some new member states have had unhappy economic experiences, which are causing political difficulties for them. The same could be seen in Bulgaria and Romania if we are not careful. I look at Hungary, which has undoubtedly prospered in the sense that living standards have risen overall, but in which there has been a great division of rich and poor with 40 per cent. of the Hungarian people now living in relative poverty in spite of its having done relatively well. What one sees in some countries is apparently socialist Governments who have   been driven to take the neo-liberal approach of privatising and liberalising their economies, resulting in great and growing disparities of income and wealth.
	Meanwhile, conservative Opposition parties have said that they do not want more privatisation or liberalisation but want to protect their welfare states. That is what is happening in Hungary. The astonishing thing there is that a conservative Opposition are being supported by a Marxist workers' party against the nominal socialist party in Government. The New Statesman last week speculated that if Mrs. Thatcher was in Hungary, she would vote for the socialist party,   never mind its name, because it is pursuing extreme neo-liberal economics. The leader of the socialist party has made considerable sums of money out of privatisation. In any case, those are not the sort of policies that should be imposed on Bulgaria and Romania. They should be allowed to manage their own economies to maximise economic growth so that they may attain living standards similar to ours.
	If we impose economic policies on those countries and their economies are damaged, with greater disparities between people's incomes, it could breed disillusion that would not be healthy for the future of the European Union. If we want to be happy together, we must ensure that living standards rise in those countries, that we converge further, and that the poor are not left out.

Anthony Steen: I first wish to make it plain that I support the Second Reading of the Bill and enlargement of the European Union. However, I wish to make several observations. Romania and Bulgaria will join the EU automatically in 2008, but Romania is hell bent on enrolling a year early and it has moved heaven and earth already to get itself into a better position to meet the acquis—all 29 chapters of it. Although it has been free of communism for only 16 years, its transformation from a highly bureaucratic, centrally controlled country to a liberated free market democratic state is truly remarkable.
	The Romanians have pinned all their hopes on a 2007 admission to the EU. They believe it to be important for their psyche, their whole approach to life and their people, but as last week's comprehensive monitoring report by the European Commission makes clear there is still some way to go before they comply with all the necessary standards. Whenever Romania does join, it will be one of the poorest countries in the EU, with state monopolies still controlling vast areas of activity, and a poor quality of life evident outside Bucharest, which serves as a reminder of the legacy of communism.
	There is a further reason why accession in 2007 is desirable, and that is because if Romania is deemed not ready then, there is a real danger that it might feel that   the west and the EU had shunned it. The country could then sink into instability caused by unchecked corruption and the growth of widespread criminal activity. The present Administration has marketed the EU as the saviour to Romania's problems. There is a danger that some may feel let down when the Elysian fields do not materialise. But Romania has rejected the east and elected to look west. We must not disappoint it.I visited Romania both as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and more recently as a member of the all-party European Union enlargement group, which enabled us to meet not just the Prime Minister, but also the Leader of the Opposition and many cabinet ministers. I subsequently spent five days as a tourist, visiting historic cities and exploring lesser known agricultural areas.
	The Romanians believe that the EU Commission may be giving them tougher obstacles to overcome than it gave the 10 countries that joined the EU in May 2004. They argue that all eastern European countries share similar problems and that a more intense spotlight is now being focused on Romania and Bulgaria because they are just two new entrants rather than 10. The need to comply with the 29 acquis chapters before accession has provided the necessary impetus and vital motivation to embark upon an enormous programme of change. The Commission's concern and ours should be that once Romania and Bulgaria have been admitted into the EU, there is precious little that can be done to force the pace so that the reforming zeal is maintained. The House tends to forget that there are only 5,000 more officials in the European Commission in Brussels than employees, full and part time, in Devon county council. There is, therefore, a limited number of EU officials to enforce the requirements once Romania and Bulgaria become full members.
	Chapter 24 deals with co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs. Schengen and the EU external borders are highlighted as an area of serious concern, as is the fight against fraud and corruption, which is well known and well documented. There are signs that the situation is improving quite dramatically, but no high level official or Government Minister has yet been prosecuted and, as the monitoring report highlights, increased efforts are needed to ensure compliance in the   areas of money laundering, judicial co-operation in   civil and criminal matters, the fight against drugs, police co-operation and the fight against organised crime.
	Corruption is not perhaps surprising when many public officials earn less than £1 an hour, and it is not unknown for some to earn only 50p an hour. Bribes are very tempting, whether to people in the local police force or in local councils who control local permissions of one sort or another. We were told that a few years ago a bribe test of the police resulted in 70 per cent. failing. That has now fallen to some 40 per cent. However, some argue that until Romania joins the EU and starts to prosper materially, corruption will continue, including in the police and other forces.
	The US Department of State's report on the trafficking in persons, released in June this year, said:
	"Corruption among law enforcement authorities remained a serious problem".
	However, progress is being made, and in 2004, Romania's lead police anti-corruption agency investigated 81 police officials implicated in trafficking-related corruption; imposed administrative sanctions on 31 officials; dismissed 10 officials; and sent 40 cases forward for prosecution.
	Before Romania is admitted, it is essential that it sorts out its external border controls. Romania will form the frontier between the EU and Russia. It is a massive border, and it is Romania's weak spot. Once Romania joins the EU, its easternmost border will form part of the border to the entire EU area and we must all recognise our interest and responsibility in securing it. The EU must give massive funding, as well as provide border patrols, if security is to be increased to an acceptable standard. Currently the border controls are lax and people can come over from the east, from countries such as Ukraine or Moldova, without difficulty. Romania is   very much a railway station—a transit area, just as Albania is a transit centre for southern Europe. The 2005 second annual report by the International Organisation for Migration on victims of trafficking in south-eastern Europe said:
	"Romania is a country of origin for trafficking in persons. It is also a transit country for trafficking from the former Soviet Union."
	In 2003, a United Nations report listed Romania as one of the top 10 countries of origin for trafficking in the world. Internal trafficking is also a problem in Romania, with children from the poor north-eastern region of the country being sold by their families to work on farms in more prosperous regions. However, the vast majority of victims of trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation were trafficked from Romania to EU countries. It is vital, therefore, that we develop a coherent, effective, EU-wide strategy for coping with and eliminating trafficking.
	The trafficking in persons report from the US Department of State stated:
	"The Government of Romania does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking."
	The report acknowledged that
	"however, it is making significant efforts to do so".
	The Romanian Government have significantly increased trafficking convictions and sentences. In 2004, 103   traffickers were convicted, up from only 49 in 2003. However, those prosecuted are not the main players but those lower down the hierarchy, and thus the criminal networks are yet to be broken. The Government also created a national network of 52 judges specialised in trafficking cases, one for each tribunal and court of appeal. More needs to be done with regards to the screening, identification and referral of trafficking victims, as Romania has no centralised mechanism. In addition, it has no common methodology for the documentation of cases.
	Child trafficking is something that should concern the whole House. What one gathers from those in the know is that there is a rise in child trafficking on the pretext of inter-country adoption and a rise in the trade of young women and young boys. The Romanian Government have made amazing efforts to crush the trade in children, but in doing so, they have seriously antagonised organised criminal associations, which have tended to move out of Romania into Moldova or Ukraine. Let   us   remember that it is believed that, between 1991   and 2001, 30,000 children were so-called adopted and £1.18 billion changed hands.
	The problem is even more severe in Bulgaria, where the fastest growing sector of organised crime is that involving children, of which the report makes specific mention. The organised criminal gangs that arrange for children to be sold on the internet under the guise of adoption are highly disciplined and ruthless. We are talking about criminal networks and corruption on a very grand scale, which Governments are virtually powerless to control.
	The global purchasing of people is a worldwide scourge, which will be brought to the fore in Europe once Romania and Bulgaria have attained full membership of the EU. It is necessary to consider a comprehensive policy for both destination and source countries and to ensure that anti-trafficking legislation is effectively implemented, of which the fight against corruption is an essential part. In granting Romania and Bulgaria membership, the EU must simultaneously put in safeguards on the corruption front. Chinese walls can and should be put in place, and stay in place, until corruption is squeezed out, rather than giving those trafficking gangs free access throughout Europe.
	Chapter 7 deals with agriculture. One must not forget that a large percentage of the population of Romania is still engaged in agriculture. It will take many years before sufficient funds are available for modern technology to make the best use of land. The distribution of food is minimal and food is routinely sold by farmers from horse and carts at the roadside. The Commission points out that, although Romania generally meets its commitments on a number of issues, increased efforts are needed on a number of others, including animal welfare, trade in live animals and animal products, and there is serious concern about animal disease control and public health.
	I recently witnessed appalling animal cruelty in a horse market in Transylvania, where a horse was so cruelly handled and pulled so fiercely on his reins that his mouth was pouring with blood as he trotted down the road. We now have the bird flu scare, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals seems concerned with the way that the Romanians are killing poultry deemed a possible risk by throwing them alive into incinerators.
	I mention those issues not to find reasons for keeping Romania out until 2008, but to encourage the Romanian Government to do everything in their power, by changing laws now and helping to change attitudes; nor is it necessary to bring Romania and Bulgaria into the EU at the same time. One could join in 2007, and another in 2008. If we in the more prosperous countries are to help those who are less advantaged and raise their standards of living, we need to ensure that human trafficking and animal cruelty become things of the past: an important step forward for millions of people formerly under the communist yoke.

Michael Connarty: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I am reminded that a favourite adage of mine is that pessimism of the intellect should not breed optimism of the will. I hope that the pessimism of his intellect will breed the optimism of our will to welcome Romania and Bulgaria into the EU under the   accession treaty. I am also pleased to follow my   hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin   Hopkins), who sees the EU as the problem, when I see it as the solution to the problems that have been outlined in the contributions so far.
	I welcome the accession treaty. I take the admonition not to give a travelogue, but I visited Romania with the hon. Member for Totnes and the European Scrutiny Committee, and I had a chance to speak first hand to people at all levels of Parliament, the Government and non-governmental organisations there. As always, when I go to those places, I pop into a café or two and have a chat with some of the younger people and hear their aspirations. I found a similar message to the one that I   found when we visited the countries involved in the last enlargement. There are problems and there is much to be done, but they view the ability to accede to membership of the EU as a very bright light at the end of a tunnel that they have been travelling through since the time when they were trapped in the previous regime and saw their lifestyles and standards deteriorate.
	In welcoming particularly clause 1 on the accession treaty, I accept that there is much to be done, including the things outlined by the hon. Member for Totnes, although we might find that what he said about agriculture is paralleled by the abuses that we have found in this country, even under our very strict laws on the treatment of animals. Neither their treatment of animals, nor their treatment of children and other members of their community will be accepted. That is where the EU comes into its own.
	Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, I see the EU and its attempt to create a level playing field for all as a great benefit. We should not allow people to hang their political hats on the EU hook; they must conform to the process of accession. In fact, by 2007, Romania must adopt 29 provisions of the acquis—what a great difference that will make—and then the transition funds and eventually the structural funds that will become available will help Romania to   do the very things that he says should be done. I   certainly think that they should be done.

Anthony Steen: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that my speech was pessimistic. It was based on my own observations. I am totally optimistic about the acquis and Romania's ability to become a fully-fledged member of the EU, but I thought it only right to point out what is going on there and what still needs to be done.

Michael Connarty: I fully accept that. I have always found that the hon. Gentleman's activities on the European Scrutiny Committee are in a positive vein, unlike those of some of his colleagues who travelled with us and encouraged people in other countries not to join the EU. Their admonition fell on deaf ears everywhere that we went, but he has never been guilty of saying such things. We should accept that there are problems and I   shall mention some of them.
	We should ask why Romania is joining in 2007, rather than 2008, which could have been an option. One of the problems is that Romania will have to run very hard to catch up with our demands on tackling institutionalised fraud, whether small-scale bribery or large-scale fraud. When we met the President of Romania, he admitted that fraud was a major problem that he was going to tackle. The hon. Member for Totnes omitted to mention the fact that there was a rather garish picture of a former Minister in manacles on the front page of the national newspaper, which said—I believe that this was the translation—that he was shouting, "The President of Romania has put me here, and I will ensure that he ends up in the same prison." The current President is clearly taking on board the need to tackle large-scale corruption and fraud in the institutions that previously ran the country. If his record as mayor of Bucharest is anything to go by, he will challenge and beat down that high level of corruption.
	It would be unreal of us to think that this is just about the relationship between Romania and the EU. Senior members of its Parliament made candid comments about the reason why Romania would join in 2007. They said that they would offer the USA a base there. When I asked, "Do you mean a NATO base?" they said, "No, a USA base in Romania." If that is part of the equation, I am concerned. If Romania is to become involved in international defence, that should happen through NATO and it should be done in a way that does not single out any country as a partner in defence matters, while it is applying to become our partner in economic matters. Although I welcome the accession clause, I hope that the Minister will clarify whether a base in Romania will be offered to an individual country outwith the EU, rather than NATO, which is our common alliance. It might be that the politicians were expressing only an aspiration, but if that became a reality, it would be viewed negatively. It would be seen that there was a false contract between the EU and Romania if the purpose of speeding up accession was to hasten the provision of any form of military base for the United States of America.

Kim Howells: I   have certainly not heard any talk of US bases, nor did   I hear such talk when I was in Romania. However, I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says.

Michael Connarty: The Minister can check that out if he wishes because it was said to me not privately in a whisper, but in a meeting in Romania that was attended by other members of the European Scrutiny Committee. The suggestion worried me, but if it was simply an aspiration and someone was grandstanding, I will be glad to see the rumour put to rest.

Anthony Steen: I had the feeling at that meeting that the speaker might have been confusing the United Nations with the United States and perhaps believed that the UN   was funded by the United States, and thus was, in fact, the United States. Might that solve the problem?

Michael Connarty: I will leave the problem to be solved by those in government who must clarify such matters on our behalf. However, it would not have been right of me to pass on without putting the matter on record so that they can puzzle over it or refute it either during the debate, or in the future.
	The freedom of movement for workers, which is addressed in clause 2, is a fundamental aspect of what we are doing. If I am reading the Bill correctly, we will allow people from accession countries such as Romania and Bulgaria to come to the United Kingdom to work if they have an offer of employment. It has already been said that some 230,000 people have already come here to work and are thus contributing and paying taxation.
	Neither Labour nor Opposition Members can shy away from the challenges presented by the matter. Labour Members should not over-applaud the initiative and Conservative Members should not be afraid of some of the proposals. There is a problem with exploitation. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said that we should not allow people who come into the European Union to be seen as second-class workers and second-class citizens who deserve only second-class conditions and wages.
	I am worried that some people who have come here from the 10 accession countries in the last enlargement have already been exploited, even though they might be happy to get our minimum wage when they compare that with what they could earn in their own countries. However, we must consider the scenario that occurred involving a group of workers from one of the original 15 member countries. They were bused into a work place and kept in isolation from trade unions in this country. They were doing highly skilled work in a power station in Wales, but the unions could not discover their wages or conditions of service. They were working under the posting of workers directive, which will obviously apply to workers addressed by clause 2 because, when they come here to work, they should be covered by EU directives.
	If the posting of workers directive means that we will not know whether such workers who come to this country enjoy proper conditions because they do not have access to trade unions in either their country of origin or here, something is wrong, given that there is a pledge—I believe that it was made when Mrs. Thatcher signed the Single European Act—that every citizen in Europe should be treated equally. Unless we introduce safeguards, people who come here might not enjoy the same quality, class or status of citizenship as people in the UK. Indeed, they could be seen by many as people who are available for exploitation. The trade unions must meet that challenge.

Nigel Evans: It is more than a challenge for the trade unions. Those people will be covered by UK legislation, so they should get such things as the minimum wage. I want to consider the wider aspect of the matter. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that we should consider why France, Germany and other EU countries have decided to introduce derogations regarding people from Bulgaria, Romania and the other 10 accession countries coming to work there, while we have an open-door policy? Should we not be a little more selective about the skills that we need in this country?

Michael Connarty: No. As we have done for people from the accession countries, we will allow people from Romania and Bulgaria to come here to use their skills and contribute to our economy. However, we still face a problem. If a joiner or plumber, for example, comes here from one of the 10 accession countries, it is not suitable to give him the minimum wage. Joiners, plumbers and electricians should get the proper wage for their skills. The trade unions must try to do more to enlighten workers who come to this country about the conditions of employment and wages that they should expect.
	The freedom of movement for workers also presents a question for the Government. The Government should provide all people who come to this country to work from the 10 accession countries, Romania and Bulgaria—including the 230,000 who are already here—with correct information about what they should expect for the skills that they are bringing. Everyone would benefit from such an arrangement. The people involved would be paid proper wages. It would mean that unrest would not be caused because of other workers thinking that their trades or professions were being undercut. We would thus have a much happier movement of workers.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked whether we should screen people and look only for those who can bring high levels of skills to our shores. It would be wrong to do that because, as has been said, one could question whether we would be denuding countries of their doctors and nurses, for example. People should see the attitude of this country and the EU as allowing free movement for workers so that they can go to countries, develop their skills and become better qualified, and then take better skills back to their country. Experience shows that there is a short period of outward migration as countries accede to the EU, but people then return to their own countries with better skills and the income or capital with which they can try to build up those countries. I think that that pattern will be seen with the 10 countries that have come in, as well as Romania and Bulgaria.
	When I was in Bucharest, I raised the matter of the Roma people in Romania and Bulgaria. I have also raised that point in the House and hope to do so when I   visit Bulgaria. In my youth, I thought that Roma people were the equivalent of Romany Gypsies, and thus people of European origin, albeit with a transient lifestyle. There are several encampments for travelling people in my area and I know those people well.
	When I spoke to Roma people from Romania and the Roma people who came to the House to discuss their problems, I discovered that they referred to themselves as the dark people. They were clearly of Asian or Indian origin. They said that they had been on the move for thousands of years and then landed in those countries and were, in a sense, frozen in time. They said that many of them were highly skilled. Indeed, it was pointed out that the Roma people brought the skill of metallurgy to those countries from the Asian sub-continent—it was not present before they arrived. Many of them are productive members of society.
	Roma people in Bucharest and others to whom I have spoken told me that their community is marginalised and that their people has always felt marginalised. We must tackle the question of what will happen to Roma people who might wish to move permanently, or for short periods while they are in transit. Romania and Bulgaria have not tackled those problems properly. I   hope we accept that everyone should be included in the process of access.
	The explanatory notes say that there are different proposals for the freedom of movement of workers. They relate to two years, after the third year and after seven years, which, in a sense, is a get-out clause. I hope that we will not review that negatively and will always think positively about how we can include more of those people who might not at the moment be thought of as highly skilled workers, to whom the hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred. Our part in Europe is to put together an agreement among countries that relates to all people. Yes, we need to deal with fraud, inadequate administration and the unacceptable attributes in the accession countries, but we can lift those countries to a standard with which we are all happy.

Keith Vaz: I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of my hon. Friend's remarks. Is not it right that, if those countries are to come in, they should be treated as equal partners and their citizens should have equal rights to come here, as we have to go to other countries?

Michael Connarty: I was impressed with the contribution of my hon. Friend, and he makes his point well. It is easy to find scapegoats and frighten people if everyone who is of non-British origin is seen as different, threatening or less beneficial to our society. If we make Europe wider by allowing people to come in from countries that have been frozen out for a long time and, as a consequence of their suffering, have created societies that we do not applaud, it is possible, as part of that enterprise, to give them a standard of living and an aspiration to achieve the sort of relationships that make us happy. Regardless of how we fall out over economics or policies such as defence, if we set out on that journey—the treaty is a step along the way—we will build a Europe of which we are all proud, irrespective of whether we believe in the EU as it stands or some other arrangement for the countries of Europe to work together.

Daniel Kawczynski: I will support the Bill, but want to take the opportunity to sound a note of caution. I first visited Romania in 1982 and have visited it a number of times since. On that first visit, we were shown many villages—the Potemkin villages—that were special and of a much better standard than others throughout Romania. Foreigners were shown a restricted amount of the country. We were only meant to see the nice bits and not the problems that it faced. Nevertheless, I could still see the terrible fear in people's eyes as they lived under a tyrannical regime under communism.
	The problem with Ceausescu is that he was propped up by many western Governments. In fact, the Labour Government, under James Callaghan, insisted that Her   Majesty the Queen put him up in Buckingham palace and gave him one of the highest orders. It was not just the Labour Government who were responsible, however. Others in the western world also ostentatiously fêted Ceausescu.
	When I visited Romania after the fall of communism in 1990, I was amazed at the differences. I walked along the boulevard of the Victory of Socialism, which is twice as long and twice as wide as the Champs-Elysées. It was built by Nicolae Ceausescu as a road to his palace, which is the biggest building in the world next to the Pentagon. Despite that ostentatiousness and the tremendous luxury in which he lived, the people of Romania were extremely poor. I saw people queuing for basic foodstuffs. The electricity supply was intermittent and, in many flats, only one electric light bulb could be turned on at various times of the day. It was George Orwell's "1984". It was a terrible society.
	Although I saw how ghastly that society was and although I think that Mr. Ceausescu was an appalling man, I am concerned about the way in which he and his wife were executed on 24 December 1989. No matter how bad other evil brutes are, such as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, they are given a proper hearing and trial, but President Ceausescu was tried with his wife, Elena, in a kangaroo court. He was sentenced to death almost immediately and did not have the right to   a proper lawyer. The way in which the Romanian authorities carried out his trial and execution was wrong. I hope that they have learned their lesson from that.
	I am pleased that Romania can join the nations of a new modern Europe, but there are problems. Communism has taken its toll. It had a destructive impact, not just on Romania, but on most European countries that experienced it. I saw it at first hand as a child in Poland. However, few of us will have forgotten the images that we saw on television in 1990 of the orphanages in Romania and the appalling way in which those children were treated. Those institutions still exist. Outside modern Bucharest, children are kept in state institutions that are badly heated and lit, where they receive poor care. There are awful cases of neglect.
	There is also terrible environmental pollution. The Ploesti oil fields and other industrial complexes have devastated the local environment. I fear that Great Britain and the other EU countries will have to stump up a great deal of money to modernise those facilities and ensure that the environment is brought up to the modern standard that one would expect of an EU country.
	The infrastructure is a shambles. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) stated that he was in Bucharest for only seven hours when he was Minister for Europe. That is the problem. Many Ministers get whisked to Bucharest, no doubt stay in a lovely hotel and see the best bits of Romania, but they do not see the shambolic state that it is in. If they were taken to villages like Scornicesti, Timisoara and Arad, they would see how backward the country is and the amount of money that it will need.

Keith Vaz: I should like to have stayed longer and visited such villages. That is why these debates are so important: they allow us to hear the experiences of people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). You should not criticise Ministers because they do not have the opportunity to know about countries. That should be used as part of the process by which the House is informed.

Daniel Kawczynski: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's comments. I did not intend to suggest any criticism—

Keith Vaz: Yes you did—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He used the   word "you" in his intervention and has used it again. It is advisable for him to intervene, if he must, in the correct way and to use the correct language.

Daniel Kawczynski: I repeat that I certainly did not intend to imply any criticism of the hon. Gentleman. I   simply wanted to highlight the fact that politicians from western countries do not necessarily have the time to understand the true picture in some of these eastern European countries.
	The Minister stated that €5 billion—I hope I have that right—will be spent on improving agriculture in Romania and Bulgaria. He said, though, that that was not a definitive figure, and I understand why: the actual cost will be far greater. We all know that, with Government targets, the figures are in the end much higher than the initial projections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) stated, Romanian agriculture is, with no disrespect to Romania, extremely backward. One can still see oxen and carts or ploughs rather than tractors. It is so far behind the United Kingdom that it will need a great deal of money to bring it up to our levels.
	That concerns me because I represent many hard-working, decent farmers in Shrewsbury and Atcham, including sugar beet and milk producers who are battling to save agriculture and trying to make a living. The Government are now talking about common agricultural policy reforms and, perhaps, lowering agricultural subsidies in exchange for an agreement at the World Trade Organisation. That is all well and good, but, at the same time as it is lowering subsidies for our farmers, the European Union will be pouring billions of pounds of investment into Romania and Bulgaria to get their agriculture up to our standards. That is a real concern. My priority is farmers in Shrewsbury rather than those in Romania.

Stewart Hosie: Does not the hon. Gentleman see those two accession states, and others, as an opportunity for his farmers in Shrewsbury and their quality produce, as I view it as an opportunity for farmers in Angus and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)? Why do the hon. Gentleman and his party always see these things as a threat and not, even on one occasion, as an opportunity? [Interruption.]

Daniel Kawczynski: I am accused in a sedentary intervention of carping negativism, but I am merely trying to highlight my concerns for Shrewsbury farmers and British agriculture.
	There should be restrictions on some of the workers coming from Romania and Bulgaria. I mentioned in an intervention that Poland is struggling with a lack of nurses, doctors and dentists because they are all pouring into the United Kingdom. My cousin, a nurse, has left her hospital in Warsaw to come and work in the UK. That is marvellous for the UK, but there will be shortages in some eastern European countries.

Michael Connarty: I made a point about people returning to their countries. Has the hon. Gentleman's cousin left Poland for ever, or does she aspire to return?

Daniel Kawczynski: I am not going to go into the personal life of my cousin. I could not possibly foretell what she will do over the coming years. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman write to her and ask her himself.
	I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes on some of his remarks about the mentality of Romanians regarding animals. I own an equestrian centre and have strong feelings about the welfare of animals, particularly horses. Having visited Romania several times, I am extremely concerned about the way that animals are treated there. I have seen cases of bear baiting and the most appalling treatment of dogs in the street. I hope that if Romania does enter the European Union, that mentality is modernised and raised to our levels.

Angus Robertson: I am pleased to speak in a debate that has been at times—let me put it this way—rather detailed. It has homed in on some of the minutiae of accession and enlargement, and sometimes the big picture has been missing. That is a great shame because this is a truly historic development that we should welcome with open arms, but unfortunately some of the enthusiasm has been rather muted.
	In the years ahead we will be reuniting our continent. The countries in question, and the previous accession countries, have not been knocking on the door of Brussels for a handout; they have been wanting a hand up. They want to work hard, earn their keep and play their part in our continent. We should never forget that the benefits that will flow to those countries through membership of the European Union are mirrored by the benefits that we will enjoy here.
	The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) rightly pointed out that it would be of benefit to Members to travel widely in the region. I   had the good fortune to work in central Europe for over seven years when I was a diplomatic affairs journalist during the 1990s. Travelling back there as I do now, I can look back and compare what is now with what was then at the beginning of the 1990s. The transformation is extraordinary, and not just in the   EU   10 of recent accession states.
	The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) mentioned the challenges of border controls. I well remember standing on an Austrian police boat on the Neusiedler See doing a report for the BBC's "Correspondent" programme about those concerns. That border between Austria and Hungary was to be the outer border of the European Union. The Austrians managed that change; the Hungarians have now managed it; and I am sure that, although work needs to be done in Romania and Bulgaria, they will manage it too. I think that the glass is half full.
	Changes have occurred not just in the countries that have joined the EU; the changes in Romania and Bulgaria since the fall of communism have been profound. A point that has not been made, but which I   shall come to later, is that the impact of accession is not simply on the countries in question; it has a ripple effect in their immediate neighbours. There has been no talk yet of the near neighbourhood policy and the consequences for the countries that border Romania and Bulgaria.
	I must confess that, like many people, I do not know a tremendous amount about the culture of Romania and   Bulgaria. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke in glowing terms about the culture of both nations, and I am sure that there is much to commend it. My impression of the countries was formed through sport. I well remember, in Romania's case, Nadia Comaneci, Ilie Nastase, Gheorghe Hagi and many others.
	I had to look in a book to find out that Romania is the home of the most eastern Romance people. They have emerged from the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires and the Ceausescu regime. They have tremendous cultural breadth, including not only the general Romania population but the Hungarian minority, the Roma and Sinti people, those that remain of the Transylvanian Saxon population, Vlachs and many other minority groups about which we know little. They will be part of our European home, and that is something we should celebrate. However, we should look closely at the map and realise that the EU will have a border with Ukraine, Serbia and Moldova. We have already had mention of Transnistria. Those are challenges, and we shall need to look closely at the consequences of what is happening.
	Mention has been made of the Commission's 2005 monitoring report. We should not ignore it because, despite my enthusiasm and the fact that I think this is a tremendous, historic development, there are   challenges. On the political requirements, the Commission says:
	"Romania continues to meet them",
	but there needs to be progress in public administration, in tackling corruption, in improving the situation of disabled and mentally ill people and in fighting trafficking in human beings. Those are challenges on which the Romanian authorities need to deliver. They should be aware that those of us who are keen for their accession expect them to deliver and to improve the situation for their citizens in those vital areas.
	Bulgaria's position is similar to that of Romania. There is my football analogy of growing up with Balakov and Stoitchlov. I did not know much about Bulgaria's culture, but it is the first Slavic nation state in   history. It has managed successfully to emerge from the shadow of Ottoman domination and Soviet domination, so it has a rich tapestry. Bulgaria has a   significant Turkish community, which has formed the   minority coalition partner of most Bulgarian Governments since the fall of communism.
	Bulgaria's borders should make us think about the consequences of EU enlargement. For example, it has borders with Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Romania. I shall return to that matter after talking briefly about the challenges that Bulgaria faces.
	The Commission has set challenges for both Romania and Bulgaria. As good friends, it is right for us to point out our expectation that they deliver on their fight against organised crime and corruption, and the support of human rights protection and of minorities, especially the integration of the Roma minority. That was highlighted in the Commission report only last week.
	Before moving on to the near neighbourhood policy and the borders, I want to talk briefly about clause 2 and the movement of labour. It is right and proper that we should consider the Government's plans as they emerge in terms of the speed with which the labour market should be opened. I counsel the Minister to be highly sceptical of advice from Conservative Members on this issue. During the previous Session there was hysteria about the prospect of giving workers from the 10   accession states the freedom to come to the UK. That opposition would have had devastating consequences in   my constituency and many others. The example of hard-working Poles and others is a credit to their homelands and to their homes in Moray and many other parts of the country. I am sorry that little or no mention was made of the opportunity, or the potential   benefit for the economy, that is provided by hard-working people. There has been no praise for the   hard-working people who have come here. I shall be happy to send a copy of the comments that have been made by Conservative Members to local employers in my constituency so that they are fully aware of the attitudes of the main UK Opposition party.

Keith Vaz: Does the hon. Gentleman think that now is the time to get rid of the stereotypes that have somehow attached themselves to those who have come since 1 May 2004? They are in every profession and in every type of work in every part of the country, and we are   glad that they are here, including the cousin of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel   Kawczynski).

Angus Robertson: I am glad that we have in this country hard-working Poles who have come recently, along with those who came in previous generations. The impression of people in my constituency and elsewhere is that the Poles are hard working and law abiding. We should never shrink from reminding doubters about that.
	The near neighbourhood policy has not yet been addressed, but it is of significance. The ripple effect of accession carries on into many countries. When I was based in Vienna in the mid 1990s I well remember the efforts of Alois Mock and Franz Vranitzky in moving Austria towards membership of the EU. That had a considerable impact throughout the wider Danube region. It was not confined to former communist countries thinking that they were on to a good thing. There was a general realisation that membership of the   European Union was worth pursuing. I am disappointed by the Austrian Government's recent opposition to Turkish membership. It is ironic that one of the most vocal supporters of Turkish membership of the EU was none other than Jörg Haider. That might be a surprise to some.
	We need to understand that the EU is already looking at countries that are bordering on the accession states that we are discussing. In 2004, the launch of the near neighbourhood policy would have an impact on Ukraine and Moldova. A little later, a second round of the policy was launched, which would include the south Caucasus—Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. The policy does not mean that those different states will be   able automatically to join the EU; it recognises the ripple effect that accession has as the EU moves further   east, bringing benefits to trade, standards of governments, human rights, law, cross-border control, combating drugs and human trafficking and to fighting terrorism. We should never forget that all those things are part of the ripple effect of enlargement.
	I have one minor criticism of those on the Government Front Bench, which I made in an intervention at the start of the debate. I was reminded of it when the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) arrived in the Chamber late because, as a fellow member of the European Scrutiny Committee, he had to attend a meeting with members of the European Parliament. When European business comes before the House, every effort should be made to co-ordinate so that Members of this place, such as the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Totnes and me, as members of the European Scrutiny Committee, are not put in an impossible position whereby we cannot attend important meetings. I hope that the Government will take that comment in the spirit in which it has been made.
	The Minister for Europe will be aware of the irony, from my perspective and that of my hon. Friends, that we have been discussing the accession of 10 states, and the prospect of Bulgaria and Romania—and, in time, Croatia and many others— joining the EU when our historic nation, Scotland, is not in its rightful place at the top tables of Europe. If the benefits of membership are obvious for both the richer and the emerging economies, and for both larger and smaller countries, it is ironic—this will not be lost in time in the public consciousness in Scotland—that Scotland is not part of an inward enlargement of the EU as well.
	The Minister for Europe said in error at the start of the debate that there was tripartite support in the House for enlargement of the EU. Of course, he knows that the Scottish national party, Plaid Cymru and our Northern Irish colleagues support enlargement. I am not sure why he should ignore the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. Our parties will be delighted to support the Bill. I hope that it will not be forced to a vote. We shall be looking closely at what happens in Romania and Bulgaria to ensure that they make progress on their obligations in the years ahead. We hope that they can soon be part of the EU, and we wish them well.

Greg Hands: For the first time, under the Bill, the EU will reach the Black sea. For the first time, Greece will have an overland connection to the rest of the Community. This is not a tidying-up exercise; it is a significant expansion of the EU in its own right. I am delighted to be called to participate in the debate, because I have taken a strong personal interest in the affairs of both Romania and Bulgaria since my first visit to both countries in 1988 as a student. My recollections are similar to those of my hon.   Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski).
	If I had been asked at that time how long it might take for those two countries to join the EEC, as it was then known, I would probably have said 15 to 20 years, and possibly longer for Romania. That has proved to be more or less correct. I am sure that the wait has been right for the EU, and that it has probably been helpful to Bulgaria and Romania.
	I clearly recall my first visit to those countries in 1988, arriving at the Gare du Nord in Bucharest after a long slow train journey from Budapest. The journey was memorable for two things—poverty and corruption. The Ceausescu regime was rampant, demolishing whole districts of Bucharest in the most controversial manner possible and creating agri-industrial complexes in the countryside. Today, such regimes exist only in North Korea or Zimbabwe, but the Ceausescu regime was in the premier league of tyranny. The poverty was incredible for a European country. Children begged at the side of the train for chewing gum, and even tourists had almost nothing to eat. I survived on tomatoes for an entire week, and gained the impression that a command economy was operating. The week after, people probably lived on cucumbers.
	Corruption was evident as soon as I arrived at the border. The price of a visa was hiked up arbitrarily, from 40 Deutschmarks to $40, then to £40, because I   was a UK citizen. I recall Romania as a beautiful but depressive and slightly volatile country. The only place to go in the capital at night was a rundown 1930s-style club called the Athenée Palast, which offered truly ghastly entertainment. I believe, however, it is the club mentioned by the late Alan Clark in an interesting passage in his diaries about his trip to Romania in the late 1980s. The people were naturally friendly but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, it was a country run by fear. It was significantly poorer than Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and even the Soviet Union.
	The status of minorities was extremely bad. I spent one afternoon in Transylvania with an elderly ethnic German who had been given electrode treatment in the 1960s because of his views and ethnicity, and was in a sad state. The atmosphere was oppressive. The only bookshop that we saw was stocked entirely with the volumes of Elena Ceausescu. The wife of the hated dictator was a chemist who specialised, bizarrely, in plagiarising the works of other scientists, which she claimed as her own. The relief caused by the December revolution in Romania was palpable, and a few weeks afterwards I received a 17-page letter from a Romanian I had met describing the conversation that he wished he had had with me. For an MP, a 17-page letter is a nightmare, but it was a revelation to me as a student, because it was a moving personal testimony that described in detail the nightmare of a life wasted at the expense of communism.
	Bulgaria was also in a bad way, suffering from a stagnant economy and the grim regime of Todor Zhivkov, a Brezhnev-like figure. It had forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of ethnic Turks in a sad precursor to worse expulsions in the Balkans in the 1990s. Bulgaria was not subject to the obsessive and   crazy schemes of Ceausescu. In fact, one of the Romanians' main grievances was their perception that they had fallen behind even Bulgaria. I returned to Romania in March 1990, when the revolution was only a few weeks old. The streets were filled with armoured cars, and it was still dangerous, with soldiers, paramilitaries and political activists all mixed together in a volatile atmosphere. Ironically, the "people's palace" that Ceausescu inhabited had just been opened up to the people, but the people did not like what they saw, and the experience evoked yet more hatred for the recently deceased dictator. The country was moving towards the leadership of the National Salvation Front, or FSN, and continuing single-party rule under Ion   Iliescu. Many people simply wanted to leave, and I was almost crushed to death on the Bucharest to Timisoara train, which was full of people wanting to go to Belgrade before Yugoslavia introduced a new tougher visa regime for Romanian citizens. Only a few years later, of course, the flow was reversed.
	Romania and Bulgaria have both had a tough passage since 1989. Fortunately, Britain has been a great friend to both of them since the beginning of democratisation. In researching my speech, I looked at the debates in the House in 1989 and 1990. I was struck by the speed of the Government's response under Margaret Thatcher. For example, in January 1990, they announced the setting-up of the know-how fund to use British expertise to advise public and private sectors in the emerging democracies such as Romania and Bulgaria. Possible membership of the European Community was first mentioned by my right hon.   Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the present chairman of the Conservative party, in the House on 31 January 1990.
	Both Bulgaria and Romania have made huge progress in the 15 years since. They are not fashionable parts of eastern Europe, and they do not have any cities as picturesque as Prague. Unlike Poland, they have not   produced a powerful diaspora, and they lack geographical immediacy. Neither of them has ever been a democracy, in contrast to Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the 1930s. Throughout the first part of the 1990s, Bulgaria was wracked by political instability and strikes. The former communists remained a powerful influence. Although the end of the decade was more stable, there was little tangible progress in economic reform until the arrival of the Simeon Government in 2001. King Simeon's Government deserve to be thanked and acknowledged. A student whom I employed and helped to train on Wall Street in 1993 went on to become Deputy Finance Minister in that Government in 2001, so in a small way I can say that I helped.
	Romania, too, has suffered from long bouts of instability, poorly executed reforms and so on. In the early 1990s, as hon. Members have said, the country grabbed the headlines for all the wrong reasons because of its treatment of children, especially orphans. Crucially, both countries could have gone down the route to demagoguery, as happened in nearby Belgrade and, to some extent, Zagreb, but they wisely chose not to do so. Both were damaged economically by the sanctions on Yugoslavia—Bulgaria was even hit by a cruise missile—and both helped us out in Iraq. The political leaders and the peoples of the two countries deserve to be congratulated on the progress that they have made in those 15 years. We are grateful for the support they have given us on issues important to the United Kingdom.
	Significant problems remain, and I shall address them briefly, as other hon. Members have already discussed them. First, corruption needs to be reduced. When I   visited Sofia in 1996, gangster culture and Government corruption were very much in evidence. I met a man who said that he ran Sofia airport. He said that the Americans were terrible at business, because they would not pay the price necessary to secure a contract. He contrasted their approach to business with that of the Germans and Italians, so it was an enlightening conversation. Corruption is still in evidence, and it is probably worse than it is in the 10 countries that joined the EU in the past year. However, it has been reduced significantly in the past 10 years, which is an encouraging trend.
	Secondly, as has been said, efforts must be made to   continue to improve the status of minorities, notably the Hungarian minority in Romania, the Roma in Bulgaria and Romania, the few remaining Germans in Romania, the Turks in Bulgaria, and the Vlachs in   Romania. Those minorities add a great deal to the culture of those countries. Thirdly, we must accelerate progress on free market reforms. Fourthly, progress should be made in reducing violent crime, especially in Bulgaria, which has suffered from assassinations. Finally, both states must boost co-operation with the west on issues such as drugs and people trafficking.

Mark Pritchard: I agree that human rights and the other issues raised by my hon.   Friend must be at the top of the list. However, as a member of the all-party group of Bulgaria and a friend of the country, I believe that, like Romania, it needs to do far more on animal welfare. I raised that with the Bulgarian Prime Minister last Thursday, and I am glad that his Government are taking the subject far more seriously. People who visit Sofia are put off by the sight of bear baiting on the streets, which is something that one does not see in Prague.

Greg Hands: That is correct. Animal welfare was covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham and for Totnes (Mr. Steen), but my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark   Pritchard) is right to say that it must conform to European standards.
	Much has improved with regard to trafficking, although the situation is by no means perfect. To some extent Bulgaria in particular will always have a problem with trafficking, because it is directly on the route from the middle east and the near east into Europe, but more needs to be done.
	In conclusion, these accessions will add another 30 million people to the EU. Compared to last year's accession states, Romania ranks second in size, after Poland. Romania and Bulgaria have been members of Partnership for Peace for about 11 years and are now members of NATO. We should welcome them warmly and try to bring them round to the British view of the EU as a looser collection of states whose relationship is characterised more by free trade than by federalised institutions.
	I am delighted that we are making good on the promises and pledges made by this country 15 years ago, including the promises and pledges made in the House in 1990. If democracy and free markets take root, Romania and Bulgaria must be welcome new members of the European Community. All of us who believe in these things should congratulate Romania and Bulgaria on their progress. We should urge further reforms, but warmly welcome the Bill.

David Jones: Like hon. Members in all parts of the House, I warmly welcome the imminent accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union. However, as a member of the all-party Romania group, I shall focus my remarks primarily on Romania—and, indeed, on the Bill.
	Romania and the part of the world I come from, north Wales, have remarkably long links. In 1890 Queen Elizabeth of Romania journeyed to Llandudno, where she set up her court for several months. As a consequence, several streets in that town were named after that event. There is a Roumania crescent, a Roumania avenue and also a Carmen Sylva drive. Since then there has been a great affinity between the people of north Wales and the people of Romania.

David Davies: Is one of the connections between Wales and Romania the fact that both have been ravaged by decades of socialism?

David Jones: It is true that a certain amount of socialism has been inflicted on Wales, but possibly not in the extreme form that Romania experienced.
	Of all the European nations in the 20th century, Romania may have been the unluckiest. The century started with a period of civil unrest and ended with the impoverished legacy of Ceausescu's bloody rule. In the   interim there was the division of the country by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, followed by several decades under communism, and the more extreme form of communism exemplified by President Ceausescu. It is a credit to the people of Romania that despite their travails throughout the last century, they remain optimistic about their future and want to play their part as a western nation.
	It is particularly to the credit of the Romanian people that they look beyond the confines of the EU and have   recently become full members of NATO. The hon.   Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) expressed some concern about the presence of the Americans in Romania. I remind him   that the Americans are also members of NATO. I   believe that there is a delegation from America in Romania at present, looking to establish a NATO base near the Black sea.
	There are admittedly real concerns overshadowing the proposed accession of Romania, especially with regard to the development of the economy, public health and corruption. For that reason a safeguard mechanism has been built into the treaty of accession. However, having spoken recently to Romanians, I know that there is great concern in Romania that the mechanism may be invoked to delay the country's accession by 12 months to 2008. I, for one, hope that that can be avoided.
	Over the past 12 months, particularly since last December's elections, democracy in Romania has made significant strides forward. There is genuine enthusiasm for membership of the EU, which has complemented other political changes in the country. If the process of accession is delayed by 12 months, which may be the case under the terms of the safeguard mechanism, the   political impetus that Romania has enjoyed over   the past few months may be lost. I would be reluctant for anything to damage the enthusiasm that has built up over recent history in Romania.
	Clearly, there are significant problems of corruption, which the Romanian authorities need to address, and under President Basescu they are doing so. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that those who take a more jaundiced view of the European project would regard it as ironic that an institution whose Court of Auditors has repeatedly for the past 10 years refused to sign off the annual accounts is so picky about corruption in Romania.
	The enlargement of the EU to encompass Romania and Bulgaria should be welcomed. It amounts to a widening of Europe, rather than the deepening that was so decisively rejected by France and Holland earlier this year. It sends out a message that Romania and Bulgaria are part of the European family, and that the EU is moving towards the outward-looking association of nation states, which is as it should be. If the EU had been more outward looking over the past 15 years, the accession of Romania and other eastern European nations may have been accelerated.
	The presence of Romania and Bulgaria within the   body of NATO must also be welcome. Our security as a   continent and our relative peace over the   past   half-century are attributable not only to the European Union, but to the strong and effective Atlantic alliance. NATO and the EU are not mutually exclusive organisations, as they are seen to be by some on the continent. European nations should play their part in wider international arrangements; they should not simply be subsumed into the rigid corpus of a European state.
	In short, progress has already been made in Romania. Certainly, much more progress has to be made, but I am sure that the character of the Romanian people, which many speakers have touched on this afternoon, will prevail. The Romanians will play their full role as part of a Europe of independent nation states and as part of the stabilising political force of NATO. I welcome the Bill.

Mike Hancock: I   apologise to the House, especially those Members whose speeches I missed in my absence. I wrote to Mr.   Speaker asking to take part in the debate, but was subsequently required to chair a Committee of the House—ironically, on the EU budget, which was interesting to say the least. I wrote to Members on both Front Benches and to my colleagues to tell them that I   hoped to take part, and I was present for the opening speeches of both the Minister and the Opposition spokesman. I was pleased with the Minister's opening statement, namely, that he had fulfilled the ambitions and commitments that all of us feel, and that right back to 1990 UK Governments had supported the endeavour to bring Romania and also Bulgaria within the European family. I would be disappointed if that did not happen on 1 January 2007.
	As the current chairman of the British-Romanian all-party group, I am proud to say that my association goes back to December 1989 when the revolution was taking place in Romania. I was there and I remember only too well the enthusiasm of some, the doubts of many, and the fear felt by much of the population about the possible repercussions of what they had started. It was not until a few months into 1990 that we began to realise that that fear had started to ebb away and was being replaced with hope and enthusiasm for that beautiful country, in terms of it developing to full maturity and giving its citizens the opportunity for a better life.
	During the time that I have been a member of the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe I   have been responsible for writing reports on Romania and Bulgaria, as well as other former Soviet states. I   have written about corruption, about trafficking and about institutions. I know such institutions very well because I worked in asylums in Romania. I know what it is like to work with children and adults in long-stay institutions—young men and women whose only existence had been among some of the worst horrors one could ever imagine; which would put to shame any human being associated with them; and which would defy any possible description that I could give. Nobody could suggest that that was a right and fit way to treat any other human being.
	During the 15 years that I have been a regular visitor to Romania and Bulgaria, enormous steps have been taken by the people of those countries. A year ago, I   wrote a report for the Council of Europe about taking   young children out of institutionalised care. The situation is not perfect by any means— a lot still needs to be done. Having said that, I worked with children with disabilities in this country, and many of their parents told me that even here they struggled for 20 years or   more to get proper recognition of children with disabilities. For a long time, the only solution was to put them in long-stay institutions. That took us up until the   1980s, when we started to think about care in the community without providing the resources to ensure that the community could properly care. It would not do justice to what has been achieved to expect the reversal of the horrors of Ceausescu, and for that matter what happened in similar institutions in Bulgaria, in a very short space of time with nowhere near the resources that we had. Staff have been trained, mentalities have been altered, and people in the community generally want to see children back where they belong, wherever possible—properly supported in their families.
	One of the failures of the past 15 years in both countries has been that of EU countries to support the political process within political parties. Politicians lived in the expectation that they would win the next election, but they had no chance of winning the one after that. It was a question of their getting power, then using and abusing it in the knowledge that the overwhelming majority of people would reject them at the next election. There was no consistency in working as opposition parties. The EU put little effort and few resources into stabilising the political processes in countries such as Romania and Bulgaria. Without that, democratic processes will always be subjected to abuse and failure.
	Corruption is another problem in those countries. When the Romanian President was here last week for the Hampton Court meeting, I asked him whether the Romanian people were comfortable about the changes that were being proposed. He said that corruption will start to be proven to be dealt with when investors feel safe to invest in Romania and western countries and others invest large sums of money there without having to answer the niggling question of how much it will cost to get a particular deal. That process was started by former Prime Minister Nastase. I give credit to that Administration for doing two good things. First, they started properly to resource social care for children, albeit under a lot of pressure from the EU; and secondly, they tried to tackle corruption and create confidence in inward investment into Romania. The current Prime Minister and the Liberals are working hard to follow that commitment, and the current President is determined to make a great effort to try to pull off the coup of taking down someone in a position of power who is known to be corrupt. The willingness to find the   necessary evidence to do that has not been there in the past, but now the challenge is starting to be addressed realistically, particularly in Romania.
	My first drive in Romania was along the road from Brasov to Ploesti. The British and Americans bombed the city of Ploesti heavily in the second world war. Many of its people have unpleasant memories of horrendous bombing, day after day, night after night, in 1943 and 1944. When I stopped at the side of the road, I had never in my life seen such rich soil and agriculture. Romania has the largest cultivable space in Europe, bigger than Spain or even France—4.5 million hectares of rich soil where one can grow virtually anything. It is amazing that such a rich country was destroyed so stupidly by politicians who did not have an inkling of what they could have done with those resources. The country went from being gold-rich to oil-rich to land-rich.
	Many hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), talked about the character of the Romanian people. It is obvious to anyone who has been there that they have a resilience and a willingness to work hard and to try to make a success of their country. I am heartened by the fact that many of the people whom I met in 1989 and 1990, having left Romania, are now back there because they want to give their country some of the knowledge and opportunities that they have been granted elsewhere.
	The same can be said of Bulgaria, where I recently wrote a report about children and trafficking. It is sickening to see any child who is exploited and trafficked. However, the situation has moved on considerably in 15 years. Over the past three or four years there has consistently been a willingness first, to admit to the problem, and secondly, to start to deliver some of the solutions. I am heartened by that response.
	Countries such as Romania and Bulgaria have been under enormous pressure in relation to children being adopted by Americans and people from other countries who are in favour of international adoption. One hon.   Member spoke about the problems involved in international adoption in countries in the EU, but that should not be happening. The people who are adopting those children are doing so illegally in Sweden, France and Germany, and perhaps even still in the UK. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham says from a sedentary position that the German Chancellor illegally adopted; I do not think that he did.
	I, for one, am not completely opposed to international adoption. For some children, it will be their only opportunity to have a good life—the sort of life that many of us have taken for granted. A ban on international adoption is not the answer. A ban on illegal international adoption without proper checks and balances, and without proper care being put into it, is part of the answer. What is really needed is for proper resources to be provided so that children can be cared for by families who are prepared to adopt inside these countries, but that has not been easy to achieve.
	If we do not give Romania and Bulgaria the green light, we will disappoint countless millions of people in both countries. If Romania and Bulgaria are not granted accession to the EU, agricultural workers, steelworkers, the young unemployed and the elderly living on meagre pensions will pay the price. Those people need to be confident that, for the first time in most of their lifetimes, the political structures are in place to allow their countries to care for them properly, to give them a decent education and somewhere to live, to protect them when they are unhealthy and to provide them with an opportunity to fulfil their true potential. Those goals are idealistic, but young people in Romania say that that is what they will get out of joining the EU.
	It is too easy for us to be too critical of both countries. The benchmark was set by the EU's acceptance of countries such as Latvia, which has more than 1 million non-citizens, and Slovakia, where the Roma people have encountered many difficulties—a blind eye has also been turned to the abuse of the Roma in countries such as the Czech Republic. It would be wrong to set the benchmark so high that it is impossible for Romania and Bulgaria to join.
	As a democratic assembly, we must help to strengthen the political process in both countries and ensure that the EU properly examines the funds associated with the accession process. I have just chaired a Committee discussing the EU's forthcoming budget, in which one theme was the appalling way in which the EU currently deals with corruption within its own budgetary system. As other hon. Members have said, the EU's criticism is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
	The accession funds for Romania and Bulgaria are of critical importance to the people of those countries, and if they are squandered those countries and those peoples will suffer. While the Government have the EU presidency, I urge them to ensure that the monitoring process is rigidly adhered to and that the funds are properly monitored and directed in a way in which we can all be confident. Given the hundreds of millions of euros that are being put into those countries, it is strange   that the EU offices in Bucharest and Sofia are conducting such limited scrutiny of the operation, and we need a greater understanding of why those funds must be focused in certain ways.
	Anyone who has been to Romania in the past few months and visited the areas devastated by flooding will see that the infrastructure is shot. The situation is disastrous for the county councils and municipal authorities, which cannot recover. Those bodies will get some help from national Government and a trickle-down of help from the EU, but that is nothing like the resources that we should have been able to commit to put the infrastructure back together. The people who are living in tents in Transylvania and on the Moldovan border face a harsh winter because they have nowhere to live.
	Earlier, hon. Members intervened on the Minister on the health issue. In London last week, the Romanian President gave an assurance that Romania is tackling it and delivering much-needed resources to combat the spread of bird flu. Anyone who has been in Romania in   the past few weeks will have witnessed the measures that have been implemented, which are a credit to the   country. However, anyone who has been to the beautiful Danube delta, which is inhabited by exotic birds at certain times of year, will know that it is an impossible task to trace every bird that dies from or becomes infected by avian flu.
	Today, we have an opportunity to do the right thing by people who have had the wrong things done to them for too long. I applaud the Government's efforts in getting the legislation through this House and support wholeheartedly the Minister for Europe's determined effort to ensure that accession happens at the earliest opportunity and that no delays occur.

Anne McIntosh: We have had an excellent, albeit intimate, debate, and I welcome the Bill on behalf of the official Opposition.
	I do not want to expose the Minister for the Middle East, who will wind up the debate, to internal grief, but when Greece joined the EU in 1981 and Spain and Portugal joined in 1986 the Labour party was not only against enlargement but against membership of the EU:   how times change.
	The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) spoke eloquently about the inspiration of the people. We cannot accuse bureaucrats in Romania and Bulgaria of being inspired, but he is right that we must carry with us the inspiration of the people to ensure that Euroscepticism, which we saw in some applicant countries in the run-up to their votes on accession, does not emerge in Bulgarian and Romanian national newspapers.
	Like me, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr.   Clegg) has had the benefit of being a Member of the European Parliament. He reminded us that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria will lead to a Europe of 500 million citizens, and we warmly welcome that increase in the size of the marketplace. He addressed the question of how to make an enlarged EU   sustainable and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), referred to the Commission report and drew the conclusion that a great deal remains to be done.
	I want to spend a little time on the contribution of the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), and not only because he is from Yorkshire. He referred to Romanian visas, and I hope that he was not accusing his   own Prime Minister of being hysterical, because at Prime Minister's questions in February 2004 the Prime Minister accepted that it is a real issue.
	I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to page 44 of the excellent Library note prepared for the Second Reading debate:
	"In the spring of 2004, allegations that ECAA"—
	European Community association agreement—
	"applications were being abused were made by a member of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff (Steve Moxon) and then by James Cameron, the Entry Clearance Manager and   Consul in Bucharest. The Government ordered investigations which resulted in two reports on the handling of these applications." [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House takes a very dim view of electronic devices. I am not sure whether this one belongs to a Member or whether it is part of the system. As I cannot see the culprit, I suggest that we proceed.

Anne McIntosh: And then there was calm.
	The first report confirmed that there was evidence that that category had been exploited and described a serious failure in the operation of the scheme. The second report identified the exploitation of the scheme and recommended new management measures. As a result of that report, to which the official Opposition drew attention, two written ministerial statements were crafted, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recalls that changes were made in management practices.

Kevin Barron: May I ask the hon. Lady to take my word for it? Before those reports were drawn up, I was party to a deal with three of your Back Benchers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hardly need remind the right hon. Gentleman to use the correct parliamentary language.

Kevin Barron: Three Opposition Back Benchers tried to get the agricultural workers scheme reintroduced before the reports were completed so that Essex farmers in Tory constituencies could get their crops picked by Bulgarian people from Sofia university. The hon. Lady's leader dragged someone through the television studios, thus creating a problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want the hon. Lady to be tempted too far down memory lane. We should concentrate on the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have made my point and I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has conceded it.
	I warmly welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), with whom I had the pleasure to serve in the European Parliament. As he said, Romania in particular needs our help. He told some moving tales of religious persecution that struck a chord with all hon. Members. He did not need to remind us that he is not a fan of the European Commission because we have heard that on several occasions. However, he stirred the Opposition's hearts by saying that it was better to broaden the European Union by bringing in new countries than to deepen it. I join him in wishing Bulgaria and Romania well and I hope that he shares our vision of a more open, more flexible and wider EU.
	I have a high personal regard for the former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith   Vaz)—former Ministers for Europe are growing in number so I hope that that is not a bad sign for the current Minister. The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that the Bill was special and that it united all parties. I could not agree more. Perhaps he will reflect on my remarks about the Labour party's position on previous enlargements and thus form a more mature view of the Opposition's position. He referred especially to clause 2 on the worker registration scheme. I hope that he accepts that I have dealt with that point.
	I listened with great interest to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the significant success that the various stages of EU enlargement represent for UK foreign policy. I   concur with his conclusion that a phenomenal amount of work remains to be done but, as he said, the success of the EU and our membership of it depend on our being competitive. No one should owe any member of the EU   a living. We must be competitive and work hard at that.
	My hon. Friend also said that we need to reform the common agricultural policy and I agree that we expect great things of the Doha round. I urge the Minister for Trade to convey a strong message from the House about that. Our expectations of a good deal are high. I shall have a private word with him afterwards about the sugar beet growers in the Vale of York.
	I was delighted to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), who again drew attention to the need to reform agriculture and spread wealth around. He referred especially to poverty levels in Romania and Bulgaria.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned border controls and especially the fact that we are currently asking a lot of the Commission, given the limited number of officials at its disposal.
	The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was one of several hon. Members who referred to anxieties about the Roma people. We take that matter seriously and I hope that Government Front Benchers note his remarks and my concurrence with them. The position of all the minorities, especially the Roma people, has to be tackled. I should like the Government to outline a timetable this evening for their endeavour to do that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) spoke with genuine passion and experience. He referred to a previous Labour Government's support for the former communist regime and the genuine fear that that inspired.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has been well conducted so far and I trust that hon. Members on both Front Benches will ensure that it finishes that way.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	As I expected, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus   Robertson), with whom I had the honour to serve on the European Scrutiny Committee, gave a warm welcome to the new applicant members and their accession plans. He welcomed them to their natural home. Again, I agree with that.
	I was impressed by the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr.   Hands) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones). My hon.   Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham reminded us that Greece will have an overland connection to Europe. Perhaps we can concentrate on improving that connection and get the Italians away from their obsession with a bridge over the straits of Messina, which I remember with some fondness from my days in the European Parliament. My hon. Friend raised concerns about corruption, minorities, drugs and people trafficking. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West spoke specifically about Romania's close links with north Wales but also commented on its being perhaps the unluckiest of all the applicant countries so far.
	The Minister for Europe said that the Bill enables the accession treaty to be implemented in UK law and approves provisions of the accession treaty in so far as they relate to the powers of the European Parliament. He also said that the Bill includes powers to make provision on the entitlement of Bulgarian and Romanian workers to work and reside in the UK. I   followed the words of wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on that with great interest. He said that there was a compelling outstanding question. The hon. Member for Moray can now write to the employers in his constituency to tell them that the Opposition are interested in such issues.
	We expect the Minister for the Middle East to announce in his winding-up speech when the Government will announce whether the entitlement for the workers from Romania and Bulgaria will be issued immediately or whether there will be a transitional period. Can we expect any more one-legged roofers and   electricians who are not in possession of all the equipment that they might need? If we are to raise the   expectations of workers from those countries, it is important to tell them now when the benefits will be extended to them.
	Several hon. Members raised anxieties about the EU budget. I should like the Minister to confirm whether the UK will block overall expenditure within a limit in the   EU. Will the Government give a commitment to do that? Will the Minister tell us which other member states currently support our view? That will give an indication of whether we are likely to achieve that goal.

Andrew MacKinlay: In retrospect, do the Conservative Opposition regret having opposed the generous and wholly correct decision of the Prime Minister to allow the free movement of labour from day one? It has been highly successful. I hope that she will recant because I hope that she will be served in London restaurants in future. It is time that we were told because the Conservatives claim that they will not oppose the Bill—I welcome that—but they want to have it both ways. They want to say that they support accession while peddling a rather mean line on workers. At the next municipal and European elections, I and many other hon. Members will remind the large, additional electorate of the identity of those who supported access from day one.

Anne McIntosh: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and positive contribution. We have asked a question, and we would like to know from the Minister whether the workers from Romania and Bulgaria will enjoy exactly the same terms as those from the 10 new member states. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) will accept the point that we are making.
	I would also like to ask the Minister whether the two applicant countries will have the ability to meet the acquis communautaire in the same time frame that applied to the 10 countries that have recently joined the European Union. Also, will he give the House his response to the points raised about avian flu? At least two ducks have been caught in Romania, and there is a fear that the infection could spread from migratory birds. Several of my hon. Friends have raised the very real question of inadequate border controls, and those of us who have poultry producers—and, indeed, a number of wild ducks—living in our constituencies want to know how the Minister will address that issue.
	Several points remain to be addressed, including the free movement of workers, and the vexed question of people trafficking. The hon. Member for Thurrock mentioned waitresses. A number of young women from Bulgaria and Romania will be applying to work as waitresses in various parts of the European Union, and they could be exploited in other ways. We would like to know what provisions will be put in place to prevent their exploitation in any other way than that intended by the treaty. We also want to hear from the Minister what his Government are doing to bring pressure to bear on Romania and Bulgaria, given that the European Commissioner for Enlargement has noted—particularly in relation to Romania—that no corruption cases have been prosecuted to date. No person, official or otherwise, in those countries should be allowed to be seen to be above the law.
	There are many reasons why we support the Bill, but perhaps the most profound is that we believe that it will be a test of the Government's commitment to the European Union if they are able to answer our questions tonight and during the brief passage that I am sure the Bill will have through the House.

Kim Howells: I   welcome this evening's debate. The Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, South (Mr. Alexander) set the tone for what has been a very constructive debate, and I   welcome the largely positive speech from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). His words have been echoed by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
	I would also like to say how much I enjoyed and appreciated the speech made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). It was inspirational, and, if I had not already been raised a good Wesleyan in Trecynon in Aberdare, I might have taken up the cause of the Baptists in Romania. But that is a problem for history. I bet history is very glad that I did not take it up.
	I am sure that the representatives of Romania and Bulgaria will have noticed the bipartisan spirit in which this discussion has been conducted. I use the adjective "bipartisan" carefully, because the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) was a bit upset earlier by the idea that the discussion was between only three parties. He made a good point. This has been a very good debate, and it has drawn constructive views from all the parties represented in the Chamber tonight—although I   notice that the Welsh nationalists were not present.
	The Romanians and Bulgarians can be sure that this country will welcome them into the European Union as equals and partners. Some concerns have been raised in the debate and I will try to respond to them, but let me start with some general observations. The United Kingdom has always been a strong supporter of enlargement. It is a policy that has consistently enjoyed cross-party support. Indeed, as early as March 1991, the   then Prime Minister, John Major, argued that the ultimate destiny of eastern Europeans was membership of the then European Community. It is not difficult to see why.
	Successive enlargements have led to a stronger, more stable and secure Europe. We need only look at last year's accession of the 10 new member states from eastern and central Europe to see the new economic opportunities brought by enlargement. The prospect of membership helped to boost the candidate countries' economies. We have heard several accounts today, including that of the hon. Member for Moray, of the huge difference that membership has made in a short period of time. Such differences can be contrasted with conditions in some other parts of the world, where countries ought to have made similar progress but have not. This is proof of what the EU can do. Now, we see growth rates as high as 8.3 per cent. in Latvia and 5.3 per cent. in Poland.
	This is a win-win situation. High growth provides job opportunities and helps to raise living standards in the new member states. It also provides new trade and investment opportunities for the United Kingdom. Indeed, since May 2004, British businesses have benefited from new opportunities in a market that has more than 70 million new consumers. A good example is Tesco, which now has 25 supermarkets in Slovakia. As   the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr.   Hands) reminded us, there are 30 million people in Romania and Bulgaria to add to that market. That is an important consideration.
	Enlargement also means that we live in a more secure Europe. It has led to closer co-operation on border control and on tackling organised crime. New member states have brought experience and knowledge of specific regional problems. Their expertise has enabled us to get one step ahead of the drug and human trafficking gangs working through eastern Europe. The arrests of sex traffickers in Sheffield last month came about through co-operation with new member states' police forces, which represented an enormous step forward.
	One of the most striking successes of enlargement is the way in which it has spread democracy and stability across Europe, as has been mentioned today. For many of the new member states, and for Romania and Bulgaria, military and authoritarian rule is still a recent memory. It was only 15 years ago that people took to the   streets demanding change. Since then, the prospect of EU membership has driven and supported political developments. For many eastern Europeans, EU membership represents the final step in their country's transformation from dictatorship to democracy. Lech Walesa's statement on 1 May 2004, when Poland became a member state, sums that up well:
	"I fought for our country to recover everything it lost under communism and the Soviets . . . and now my struggle is over. My ship has come to port".
	Romania and Bulgaria are also coming to the end of their journeys. Their paths have not been easy. Tonight, we have heard some of the most moving accounts that we are ever likely to hear of what life was like under those authoritarian regimes. I found them a real inspiration. The House is constantly criticised from outside, but I do not know of any other venue in which Members can come together to share such a wealth of experience. I very much hope that this debate is reported and that the public pay attention to it. It is extremely important that that should happen but, as usual, the Press Gallery is a little empty. No doubt they are all watching the debate on television.
	It is clear that more work still needs to be done. However, the significant changes that have already taken place are a credit to the vision, energy and determination of the peoples and Governments of Romania and Bulgaria. I know that those qualities are   there. I was lucky enough to visit Romania three times, and to travel to the industrial areas of the north. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel   Kawczynski) is not here at the moment, but I should like to tell him that there are many hon. Members who have shared that kind of experience.
	The hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Moray, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) spoke about the free movement of workers, which is an important issue. A decision on whether Romanian and Bulgarian nationals will be given complete access to the labour market will be taken closer to their countries' accession.
	It would certainly be premature to make any decision now without sufficient information and planning. A final decision will be made after full consideration of the state of the domestic labour market, other member states' decisions and further analysis of our own experience of the last accession. We will of course seek Parliament's approval before setting the terms of access.
	The worker registration scheme for A8 nationals was an overwhelming success, and I think it will continue to be. We have heard some terrific tributes to it. The policy brought real benefits to the United Kingdom economy. I was glad—as, I know, were others—to hear accounts of the way in which economies far-flung from London had benefited.
	Skills shortages are not limited to rural areas. I   remember that we suddenly noticed in Pontypridd that there were a good many Portuguese bus drivers. That was because the bus companies could not recruit drivers in our area, and it has made a big difference. We began to recruit rugby players from Samoa and New Zealand at the same time.
	Many questions were asked today about Romania and Bulgaria's readiness for accession. It is in all our interests for them to be ready for accession on 1 January 2007. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) stressed that that should happen sooner rather than later, and I could not agree with him more.

Keith Vaz: Is my hon. Friend telling us that the scheme will apply to Romanians and Bulgarians, and will he give us a timetable?

Kim Howells: I have made it clear that we will look at that closely and agree on the terms once accession is agreed. We will be in a much better position to make such decisions when we are closer to the date.

Andrew MacKinlay: I see that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman. Can he tell us whether, between now and the date of accession, visa requirements will be relaxed for people coming to the United Kingdom from Bulgaria and Romania? That was done in respect of the 10 accession countries, and it worked well.

Kim Howells: The answer is no, but we will examine the position nearer to the date.
	A series of safeguards can be applied after accession in the event of potential breaches of the internal market, substantial failings in the justice and home affairs pillar, or major weaknesses in economic sectors.
	We have discussed a number of specific concerns, including corruption and organised crime. The hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and my hon.   Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), the hon. Members for North Antrim and for Totnes (Mr. Steen), my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and the hon. Members for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) and for Clwyd, West all asked important questions about the subject.
	Corruption and organised crime are still serious problems, and I hope those who asked about them realise that we know that. There is no doubt that both countries need to take immediate action. We heard about some of the steps that have already been taken, including the important step mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly. We are working closely with both countries. There has been encouraging progress, such as the tackling of petty corruption in Bulgaria, but further efforts are needed in the fight against high-level corruption. The recent violent organised-crime killings in Bulgaria are a stark reminder of the problems that the country faces. Criminals cannot be allowed to act above the law, and there must be robust action to rein in such elements. We will give all the co-operation we can to ensure that that happens.

Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that reform of justice and home affairs, and also economic reform, will take place much faster within a European Union of 27 than it would if the additional countries were refused entry, and continued to allow those crimes to fester?

Kim Howells: I do agree. I think that in general there has been a bipartisan approach to the issue today, and broad agreement that this is the best if not the only way forward. I hope that the success experienced so far will continue.
	We are working on the issue of border controls, which was raised by the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West, for Totnes and for Moray. On accession, Romania will have the second-longest external EU border. The hon. Member for Moray gave us an important lesson in geography and culture. I could not write fast enough to take it all down, but it would have been great if I had been able to, because I could have   used it in pub quizzes. There were so many useful facts.
	The hon. Gentleman explained how the borders had shifted. He gave a vivid account of being on a lake which, at the time, was on the eastern border of the   European Union. I think he said that it was the Austrian-Hungarian border. That worked, and this will work. We must make sure that the resources are there, and that we share our skills and those of other EU states with the new member countries.
	The Commission pointed out that neither country currently has enough border infrastructure. Improvement is needed. Funds have been provided, but training and the updating of border facilities needs to be accelerated. We are working to help implement those reforms, and we are making progress as has been demonstrated by recent drug seizures. As a number of Members said, the area is on the trail from Afghanistan through Turkey and into western Europe. We know that more than 90 per cent. of the heroin used in Europe comes via that route. It is therefore a big issue for us and for the whole of Europe, not just for those countries. That is why it is so important that they can benefit from EU membership.
	We heard, from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), a moving account of the plight of children in Romania. I think we have all learnt from it. The plight of institutionalised children is of concern to all of us in the House. In Romania, the poor living conditions of so many children is a lasting legacy of the   Ceausescu era. Although many aspects of his authoritarian rule have been eradicated, the issue still remains. We want to see rapid progress in improvement of conditions for children in both countries. The EU accession process has led to some improvements, but both Governments recognise that more resources and work are needed. The EU will continue to work closely with them to bring about substantial changes.
	Cyprus, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia have already ratified Romania and Bulgaria's accession treaty. It is no surprise that those new member states have been the first to endorse the next stage of enlargement. They know what benefits it will bring to Romania and Bulgaria, and also to the rest of the EU.   We too should be ready to ratify the treaty as soon as possible. Enlargement is a real success story for the   United Kingdom: it has created new opportunities, and helped us to combat serious problems such as people-trafficking and organised crime.
	Questions have been raised about Romania and Bulgaria's readiness for membership. As I have said, safeguards are there in case either country is not ready for membership; but I reiterate my hope that both will be ready for accession on 1 January 2007. I recall people saying in 1986 that Portugal and Spain were not prepared for EU membership. Let us look at those two countries now; they are strong economies and dynamic societies, and I cannot imagine a European Union without them. Nor, I am sure, can any other Member present.
	Romania's and Bulgaria's accession is good for the UK, good for the EU and good for both countries. As Lech Walesa might have said, let us bring their ships into port. I commend this Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

European Union (Accessions) Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6)(Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union (Accessions) Bill:
	Committal
	1.   The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and Third Reading
	2.   Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.
	3.   Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	4.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings or at the moment of interruption on that day, whichever is the earlier.
	5.   Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading.
	Programming of other proceedings
	6.   Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any   further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. —[Mr. Dhanda.]
	Question agreed to.

Geoff Hoon: I beg to move,
	That Sir Patrick Cormack be discharged as a member of the House of Commons Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, and David Maclean be added.
	This first motion and the other three motions relating to appointments are entirely routine, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I briefly set out the circumstances underlying each one. I will then turn to the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) relating to the House of Commons Members' Fund. I hope that colleagues in all parts of the House will agree that the motions are uncontroversial and can certainly be supported.
	The motion relating to the House of Commons Commission flows from the decision by one of its three Back-Bench members, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), to retire because of other commitments. He has given strong and consistent service to the Commission. We thank him for that and wish him well in his work as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. He is to be replaced by the   right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean). I am sure that Members will have the greatest confidence in the wisdom and experience that the right hon. Gentleman will bring to the deliberations of not only the Commission but the Members Estimate Committee, given that membership of one flows from membership of the other. Of course, it is fair to say that his contribution to the House in recent years has been notable for its silence. Although we will all acknowledge that it is slightly unusual to have the Opposition Chief Whip filling a Back-Bench place on the Commission, we also understand that this is likely to be temporary only, until the Conservative party leadership contest has been settled—a subject that we are of course all fascinated by.
	I turn to the Public Accounts Commission motion. Under the National Audit Act 1983, seven of the nine members of the Commission are appointed by the House. Two of its members in the last Parliament—Mr.   Bill O'Brien and Mr. Roy Beggs—are no longer Members of the House following the general election, thereby leaving the Commission two short of its full complement. The motion therefore proposes that their places be filled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for South   Antrim (Dr. McCrea). Under the motion, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is replaced by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), in recognition of the fact that the former is now a member of the shadow Cabinet. I pay tribute to the work of all three colleagues and ex-colleagues. I know that the House will have full confidence in the contributions of the new appointments.
	The parliamentary contributory pension fund and House of Commons Members' Fund traditionally have   an overlapping body of trustees. Two of the present trustees on both funds, Mr. John Burnett and Mr. Tony Colman, have now left the House. In addition, Lord Stewartby, who is the pensioner trustee for the pension fund, is retiring from the post. I am sure the whole House will want me to thank them—and, indeed, all the trustees who carry out time-consuming and sensitive work on our behalf—for all that they have done. Following discussions in the normal way, it is proposed that they be replaced by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and Lord   Naseby. Again, I am sure that colleagues will want me to express our gratitude to them for taking on this work.
	The House of Commons Members' Fund appropriation motion will be moved formally by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, as chairman of the Members' Fund trustees. I will leave him to speak to it in more detail. In essence, it provides for the fund to have access to the Members' estimate grant in aid and Members' contributions, for the purpose of paying discretionary awards to former Members and their widows or widowers. It is required annually, and I ask the House to support this, and all the other, motions.

Chris Grayling: I have nothing much to add to the Leader of the House's remarks, except to pay brief tribute to the work of those being discharged from Committees. I pay particular tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) did on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, of which he has been a distinguished member for the past few years.

David Heath: We concur.

Peter Lilley: I   shall briefly explain the purpose of the motion relating to the House of Commons Members' Fund, and the purpose of the fund itself. There are two kinds of beneficiaries of the fund, all of whom are either elderly   members of it, or their dependants. Recurring as-of-right payments are made to those who are not entitled to a parliamentary pension because they left the House before 1964, or because, as widows or widowers of former Members, they have their small parliamentary contributory pension fund benefits topped up. In addition, some beneficiaries receive discretionary payments because of hardship and their personal circumstances. The discretionary payments can be recurring in order to improve a person's standard of living; more frequently, they are one-off grants to improve quality of life, or to facilitate a minor home adaptation.
	The fund currently has some 120 beneficiaries. The average value of the recurring payments is a modest £2,000 per annum. A handful of one-off grants are made each year, with an average value of about £5,000 per annum. Such relatively small sums can make a big difference in some circumstances.
	The fund is governed by a variety of Acts of Parliament that stipulate the basis on which payments can be made and the amounts payable. The legislation is exceptionally complex and not understood by anybody, including the fund's trustees. We undoubtedly ought to regularise the legislation at some future stage, and the trustees hope to work with others, including the Leader of the House, to do so in the coming period. But the   legislation does require that we appropriate the contributions that all Members make each month, and the £215,000 a year that the Treasury contributes, in order to make such money available to pay for the grants that we make to Members as of right, and on a discretionary basis. This motion gives effect to that, and I hope that the House will support it.
	I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my fellow trustees and the departing trustees, and to welcome the new trustees to the fund.

Eric Martlew: I shall not keep the   House long. Since we last appointed a retired Member of the House as a trustee, the retired Members association has been set up. In future, we should perhaps consult the association and more widely in order to establish who the pension trustee should be. As it stands, we could well be contravening the terms of the Pensions Act 2004. I do not ask that a change be made tonight, but I do ask the Leader of the House to take cognisance of my comments.

Geoff Hoon: With the leave of the House, I shall deal with the one point that has been raised. Nominations to replace retiring trustees have come forward in the usual way. In fact, there is no legal obligation to consult any particular organisation, but we do take account of that point when there are new regulations under the scheme. A retired Members association would be an appropriate body to consult in such circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) recognises, however, that the trustees' work is quite onerous. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and disagree with his modesty. He does understand these arrangements, as I have learned to my cost in correspondence with him. It is important that the House have such expertise available to it, and I pay tribute to him and to the other trustees who do such important work for us.
	Given that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) set such a good example, I shall not detain the House any longer.
	Question put and agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONFUND

Ordered,
	That John Burnett, Tony Colman and Lord Stewartby be discharged as Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund and Mr Clive Betts, Nick Harvey and Lord Naseby be appointed as Managing Trustees in pursuance of   section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987. —[Mr. Heppell.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Ordered,
	That John Burnett and Tony Colman be discharged as Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Mr Clive Betts and Nick Harvey be appointed as Managing Trustees in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939. —[Mr. Heppell.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Ordered,
	That Mr Richard Bacon, Dr William McCrea and Dr   Nick   Palmer be appointed members, and that Mr George Osborne be discharged as a member, of the Public Accounts Commission under section 2(2)(c) of the National Audit Act 1983. —[Mr. Heppell.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND(DISCRETIONARY PAYMENTS)

Resolved,
	That pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1st October 2005 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948:
	(1) The whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and
	(2) The whole of the Treasury contribution to the Fund in that year.—[Mr. Lilley.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Fees and Charges

That the draft Consular Fees Act 1980 (Fees) (No. 2) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 11th October, be approved. —[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing   Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Dangerous Drugs

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 11th October, be approved. —[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	IsItFair Campaign

Peter Viggers: I beg to present a petition that is part of a large series against council tax instituted by the IsItFair campaign. The petition has been signed by 307 people in the Gosport area, and it was organised by my constituent Alan Scard, who acted as my agent in the recent election. The petition gives me a chance to thank him for his exceptional support and friendship.
	I share my constituents' anger and distress at the fact that, partly because the Government have switched support from the south of England to the north, the council tax has become a most unfair burden, especially for those on fixed incomes. However, I must say that I do not share the petitioners' view about a proposed solution.
	The petition declares that the year-on-year, inflation-busting increases in council tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay: further, that the proposed property revaluation and rebanding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace council tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income, such tax to be based on a system that is free from   any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Rolle College

Hugo Swire: The university of Plymouth's report on the impact of the move of Rolle college in my constituency from Exmouth to Plymouth clearly indicates that the ensuing loss to the town would be in the region of £4.8 million to £5.6 million per annum, which represents between 1 and 2 per cent. of Exmouth's economy. The three-month consultation period ended on Monday, and the governors of Plymouth university will announce their decision on 11 November. That is why more than 3,500 petitioners have signed my petition.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the university of Plymouth not to relocate the faculty of education at Rolle college, Exmouth, to Plymouth.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

PRIMARY SCHOOLS (DENTON AND REDDISH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.——[Mr. Heppell]

Andrew Gwynne: Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me this Adjournment debate tonight.
	One of the things in this Government's record since 1997 of which I am most proud has been the record investment in education, particularly in terms of capital work to renew our schools. In my Denton and Reddish constituency, we have certainly benefited from that investment. With the money, we are renewing the fabric of all our existing schools. We have a new primary school at Poplar street, Audenshaw, and another new school is planned to replace both Aldwyn school and Hawthorns school, again in Audenshaw. There is a possibility that we will have a brand new primary school in Dukinfield, and it is now also possible that we will have one in Reddish, in the Stockport part of my constituency. It is to the school proposal in Reddish that I wish to draw the attention of the House and of my hon.   Friend the Minister.
	For any community, the announcement of a brand new primary school with modern learning facilities and an attached children's centre should be brilliant news. However, that theory takes no account of the total mismanagement of the issue by Stockport council over the summer.
	First, the council's Liberal Democrat executive has decided that the new school will be developed on land at Harcourt street. The land, now a playing field, was a clay extraction site for the former Jackson brickworks. When the clay extraction process ended in the late 1960s, the massive hole in the ground was infilled with all kinds   of rubbish. That, of course, was prior to the introduction of the 1974 landfill licensing regime.
	There are no records of precisely what was dumped at Harcourt street. To put my concerns into context, I wish briefly to take the House on a tour of my constituency. In the Tameside part of the seat, we have three other former Jackson Brick clay extraction sites. As at Harcourt street, those sites were all landfilled in the 1970s before the licensing regime existed, and were subsequently converted to playing fields.
	The first site is Guide lane, Audenshaw. I refer the House to a report of Tameside metropolitan borough council, which states:
	"This is a former clay pit and problems with landfill gas migration became apparent in late 1997. Landfill gas alarms were fitted in four properties after gas was found after a routine inspection. Following this the Council received funding to install a venting trench with extraction stacks."
	The next site is Windmill lane, Denton. Tameside council's report adds:
	"The Denton IV landfill site was filled during the 1970s and is known to be producing landfill gas and leachate."
	The final site is Ruby street, Denton, and the report states:
	"This site, a former clay pit, was identified as a problem in 1989 with gas found to be migrating from the site. Tameside received funding to install a gas extraction system across the site. The site remains closed off to the public and responsibility has been transferred to the Environment Agency."
	As if that were not bad enough, there is another Jackson's site at Adswood, in Stockport borough itself. It is also experiencing substantial problems with gassing and leachate. In the report that went to the council's executive, not a single mention was made of the fact that Harcourt street was a former landfill site—even though it is clearly logged on the council's contaminated land register.
	I asked Stockport council what testing had been done to ascertain whether the site was safe for a new primary school. The council presented me with a so-called consultants report. First, the report got the location of the site wrong: it even refers erroneously to ground investigations at Bank Hall service station, Bootle. That is hardly a comfort to those of us seeking assurances from the report.
	It transpires that, on that massive site, just six boreholes had been dug, and that four of those were abandoned at around 3 m because of obstructions in the ground. So the whole basis of the approval of the site   hinges on a two-borehole survey. The small print in the consultants report states that the
	"recommendations are based on the information gained at the position of the boreholes. If different conditions are encountered then further advice should be sought".
	Given that only two full-depth boreholes were eventually dug, it is highly probable that different conditions could be encountered on the Harcourt street site.
	Furthermore, I contacted the Environment Agency to see whether the council had sought its advice on this matter. In a letter to me dated 23 September 2005, I   was told:
	"However, the Planning Authority has not consulted us about such a proposal on the Harcourt Street site".
	That information was just not good enough to serve as the basis for a decision to site a new school.
	Thanks to a superb presentation by those members of the public who have formed themselves into the north Reddish action group, Stockport council's scrutiny committee called in the executive's decision and asked for further site monitoring to be done. Unfortunately, the executive decision for the site was not overturned. The extra tests are crucial, but I fear they will be too little, too late, because the decision is made and we still do not know precisely what was dumped at Harcourt street.
	Nor is it the case that there are not alternative or   better sites in the immediate area—there are. Residents themselves have suggested a number of possible alternative sites, and their suggestions should at least, one would have hoped, be given proper consideration by Stockport council. They were not: Stockport's mind was firmly made up in advance of the formal decision. In a letter to me dated 23 August, the   director of education told me that one impediment to one of the proposed alternative sites was that it would require a
	"full environmental impact study, possibly costing as much as £100,000."
	The inference is that no study is needed at Harcourt street, which, as we know, was a former landfill site.
	Those are my concerns about the site itself and how the council reached its crazy decision to site a primary school there. I shall turn briefly to matters relating to the two existing primary schools, which are set to close.
	First, we are in the middle of a consultation period on   the Fir Tree and North Reddish schools closure proposals. Given the Minister's letter to all local education authority chief executives, dated 6 September, in which she informs them that Members of Parliament are to be considered statutory consultees for school reorganisations in their constituencies, she will understand my dismay that I am still awaiting official notification from Stockport council of the proposal in my constituency.
	Secondly, I firmly dispute the estimated sale price of the Fir Tree site, a substantial site of between four and eight acres, depending on the amount of land the council is willing to have developed. It is only £1.2 million, with outline planning permission for housing thrown in. That is outrageous, despite protestations to the contrary in the local press by the rather ineffectual new council leader. Neighbouring Labour-controlled Tameside aims to raise land values of around £1 million an acre for such land with planning consent and, more importantly, succeeds in getting it. If Stockport sought to do the same, it would raise a substantial sum.
	On the basis of the council's projected capital receipts and the £2.2 million grant from the Government, there is a shortfall in total projected finances. The Lib-Dem Stockport council has excelled itself in committing to borrow the extra money. My point is that if it did not flog off the land on the cheap, it clearly would not need to borrow more money. What a double whammy that is for Reddish residents—the council sells the land to a developer on the cheap, and the residents pay for the privilege.
	Given that appalling situation, I asked for the   background information that would support the executive's decision to borrow the additional money. It beggars belief: it is four pages long—one page for each of the two school sites to be sold and two covering pages of officer blurb. So much for the full financial options appraisal I was promised and hoping for.
	I really did despair when it stated, on page 2 that
	"in the time available to prepare this report it was not possible to enter into detailed consultation with the Council's planning, legal and education departments."
	I was lost for words when I read that. The executive approved borrowing on the basis of a back-of-a-fag-packet report, when no detailed consultation with the planning, legal or education departments had even taken place.
	I hope that the Minister can intervene to inject some realism into the project. Stockport council needs to start again, and from the beginning. It is a complete and utter disaster. In the near 10 years in which I served in local government before becoming an MP, I never saw anything bungled quite as this scheme has been. Executive members have railroaded through important decisions on the basis of sloppy reports and inaccurate information—no questions asked, not even a little query. The proposal was just nodded through.
	The community's views have been ridden over roughshod in this shabby, sorry affair. Only in Lib-Dem Stockport could the council turn a good news story into the script for the ultimate disaster movie. I hope that the   Minister fully appreciates the concerns of my constituents and that the people of Reddish want a new school with top facilities. The people of Stockport deserve better than their incompetent and rotten Liberal Democrat administration, and the children of Reddish deserve better than a landfill site.

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on securing the debate. Changes in educational provision in an area, particularly when they involve some of the very difficult planning issues that he has outlined, are clearly of great interest to local people, and it is absolutely right that the local Member of Parliament should be involved. Despite his relatively short time in the House, it is clear that my hon. Friend takes his responsibilities to his constituents extremely seriously and is asking for—even if he does not always get—precisely the information that his constituents deserve.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, on 6 September we formalised access to information with respect to educational reorganisations by revising the statutory guidance to local authorities to include local MPs in the lists of those whom the Secretary of State considers should be consulted about changes to schools. My hon.   Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne   Snelgrove) is in the Chamber, and it was not least because of representations that she made about how she had been treated by her local authority in a similar situation that we made those changes and made very clear the need for local MPs to be consulted about changes to schools. If consultation has started, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that it is frankly not on that he has not been consulted. He should have been.
	I welcome my hon. Friend's recognition of the Government's record investment in education. That will, of course, be continued under the "Building schools for the future" programme and our new primary investment programme. In England, the Government are supporting £5.5 billion-worth of capital investment in schools this year, rising to £6.3 billion-worth in 2007–08. That is a sixfold increase in real terms since 1997, when the figure was under £700 million.
	Stockport's local authority and its schools have been allocated nearly £34 million of capital support over the next three years. Overall, Government support for investment in the primary estate alone should rise to an estimated £1.8 billion in 2007–08. I am therefore pleased that the benefits are being felt in the Denton and Reddish constituency, as well as across the country. As my hon. Friend has outlined, his constituency will benefit from new primary schools at Audenshaw and there is a possibility of a new school at Dukenfield.
	I am sorry and concerned to hear about the problems with the proposed new school in Reddish. I am sure—I   hope and expect—that Stockport council will take note of the very important points raised by my hon.   Friend and the north Reddish action group. The calling-in of the executive decision by the scrutiny panel is an important sign, but it is clear from what my hon. Friend said that considerable additional questions need to be answered. However, I have to say that the organisation of schools in an area is essentially a matter for local decision. It is the local authority that has the statutory responsibility for planning school places and for proposing to close schools and to open new ones.
	It may be helpful if I say something now about the current arrangements under which the proposals for changes in Reddish have been published. Before the Government took office in 1997, proposals for changes to schools often came to the Secretary of State for decision. We considered that such matters were best decided locally, and a new system was put in place by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. That is still the basic legislation today, and the relevant provisions in the case that has been raised by my hon. Friend include the provision that before a local authority may close a school or open a new one, it must first consult in the local area. Among those whom we advise should be consulted are any schools affected by the proposals, and parents and teachers in the area. The guidance was revised in September, when local MPs were added to the list, as were local district and parish councils where the   schools are situated. Although the consultation is not a referendum, and the authority is not bound by the   results, it is required to take the results of the consultation into account in deciding whether or not to proceed with its proposals.
	If the authority decides to proceed, it is required to publish its proposals in a newspaper circulating in the area, and the notice must give details of how people may object to the proposals or comment on them. Anyone may make representations in response to the notice, whether or not they are directly affected by the proposals. If there are no objections, authorities may decide their own proposals themselves, but if there are objections the proposals go to the local school organisation committee to decide.It is then for the committee to approve or reject the proposals. It may also modify them, after consulting interested parties, but not to the extent that they are effectively new   proposals. Modifications are usually to the implementation date, at the request of those bringing forward the proposals.
	The committee may approve proposals only if it is satisfied that any capital necessary to implement them has been secured. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in the case of this project the authority has been allocated £2.2 million in targeted capital funding to build a new school, which is the total amount for which the authority bid—so the Government have played their role in ensuring that new provision in the area is properly funded. Separate funding is also available for a children's centre. The total cost of the project is expected to be some £5.5 million, with the authority providing the balance. While the facilities to be provided are a matter for the local authority, we encourage the provision of enhanced facilities, suitable for the 21st century and a range of uses. It is in order to develop such facilities that we are investing record amounts in school capital and ensuring that developments are linked with extended service provision for children and child care.
	I shall continue with the process. If the committee cannot agree unanimously, the proposals are referred to the independent schools adjudicator for decision. The adjudicator's decision is final, subject to the normal operation of the law, for example, as regards judicial review. Since September 1999, Ministers have not been involved in such decisions. The proposals in Reddish will be decided under that system.
	The local authority cannot just close the schools in   Reddish and build a new one. I understand that the   consultation took place in the summer and that statutory proposals have been published in respect of the changes. I believe that the representation period will end in mid-November and that the school organisation committee is planned to meet to decide the proposals in December. I hear the concerns of my hon. Friend about the extent to which he has been involved in that consultation, and he has clearly shown his ability to represent his constituents. It is crucial that he and other members of the public are fully involved in the consultation on the proposals.
	In deciding the proposals, the committee will be required to decide the issue on its merits, taking into account all relevant factors and the Secretary of State's statutory guidance on proposals to open and close schools. Among the factors that the committee will need to consider are whether the proposals will improve the standards, quality, range and/or diversity of educational provision in the area; whether the proposals represent a cost-effective use of public funds; whether the sale proceeds of redundant sites are to be made available and whether the Secretary of State's consent has been obtained where necessary; the views of parents and other local residents, including those who may be particularly affected by the proposals or who have a particular interest in them; the length and nature of the journey to the alternative provision; the extent to which the proposals take account of the needs of families and   the wider community and promote community cohesion; and the overall effect of a closure on the local community.
	My hon. Friend has made it clear that views about these proposals are mixed, to put it mildly. He has also made clear his concerns about the safety of the landfill site and about the scale of the capital receipts from the sale of the Fir Tree site. Although those are not matters for which I have policy responsibility as a Minister in the   Department for Education and Skills, they are nevertheless very important in the consideration of the proposals, as he pointed out. If a school is to be built on a landfill site, that site must have a planning use class order that permits educational use. That is a local planning authority responsibility, but it is obviously very important, as my hon. Friend has spelled out, that suitable consultation has taken place with the public and other relevant agencies and that there is certainty and   reassurance for his constituents that the site is appropriate. I welcome his information that further investigations may take place—it certainty sounds as though that would be important—and I am sure that he will continue to seek local reassurance about the nature of that site or any other site for the provision of a new school for his constituents.
	On capital receipts, the value of land is, of course, very much dependent on whether it can be developed, but my hon. Friend has drawn on some important evidence about the value of similar pieces of land in surrounding areas. It is true that an acre of land with planning consent for housing development can fetch up to £1 million. Again, although I have no direct ministerial responsibility for such matters, I understand that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sets very strict rules to ensure that local authorities only sell land for the full market value—if local authorities want to sell below that value, they need the ODPM's consent. Of course, I   share my hon. Friend's concern that, notwithstanding the considerable increases in school capital, value for money in asset sales must also be an important consideration for Stockport in developing such proposals. Hon. Members will also be aware that the Secretary of State's permission would be required for the disposal of any land used as school playing fields.
	Let me return to the procedures for the statutory proposals to close North Reddish infant and junior schools and Fir Tree school and build a new school on the Harcourt street site. As I said, if the school organisation committee cannot decide on the proposals unanimously, they will go to the adjudicator for a decision. The adjudicator would consider the proposals afresh, but would also be required to take into account the result of the consultation, any objections or comments made and the Secretary of State's statutory guidance on the factors that must be taken into account. As I have spelled out, those factors include the views of local people and the cost-effectiveness of the proposals. My hon. Friend raised concerns about those matters in his speech.
	Although I know that I have not been able to satisfy all my hon. Friend's concerns, I hope that I have spelled out the process in which I strongly anticipate that he will be involved. I expect that he will be able to represent his constituents' views throughout the local decision-making process. Given his record up to now, I have no doubt that he will continue his important work to ensure not only that his constituents continue to benefit from increased school investment, but that local plans are carried forward in a way that both involves and reassures his constituents.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Nine   o'clock.